The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is as follows: (a) the Defendant asserted the grounds for appeal on June 19, 2018 on the grounds of misunderstanding of legal principles as well as unfair sentencing; (b) however, the aforementioned grounds for appeal include only the content that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable; (c) the reasoning for appeal submitted by the Defendant’s defense counsel on June 27, 2018 also includes only the grounds for appeal; and (d) the Defendant and the defense counsel appealed on the date of the first trial of the first trial of the trial of the Party.

In light of the fact that the Defendant asserted only unfair sentencing grounds for appeal.

It is reasonable to see that, even if you look at ex officio, there is an error of misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment below.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for and on June 1, 2017 due to larceny, etc. written in the lower judgment, and completed the execution of the sentence on June 1, 2017. Each of the instant crimes began on June 4, 2017 after the lapse of three (3) days from the date on which the execution of the sentence was completed; in light of the frequency, method, and contents of the crime, the nature of the crime was heavy; the damage was not received from most victims; the damage was not recovered at all; and the records of the punishment for the same kind of crime included four (4) times as punishment are disadvantageous.

However, in full view of all other circumstances, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances of crime, circumstances after crime, etc., which are the conditions for the sentencing of this case as shown in the records, such as the fact that the defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case and reflects the depth of each of the crimes, and that the defendant's punishment is unfair because the defendant's punishment is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing has merit.

3. Conclusion.