The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the gist of the grounds of appeal: (a) the Defendant confessions and reflects the Defendant; (b) the background leading up to the Defendant’s commission of the instant crime; (c) the Defendant is endeavoring to agree with the victim; and (d) the Defendant is expected to receive medical treatment as to the theft habits, the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.