The corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (2020 order 2805 case) shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two months.

1. The decision of the court of first instance (six months of imprisonment with prison labor and four months of imprisonment with prison labor with prison labor for the crimes No. 1 and No. 2 in the market) against the accused in the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In a case where the first instance court did not change the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court with respect to the corresponding part of the crime of Articles 1 and 2 in its holding (2019 high group645, 2019 high group6872) and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following is deemed to have sufficiently taken into account the circumstances asserted by the Defendant in relation to the relevant facts charged, etc., as the grounds for sentencing of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court.

In addition, considering the following circumstances, the sentencing of the court of the first instance is deemed unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion and is excessively unreasonable, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the offense, means and consequence of the offense, and circumstances after the offense.

B. As to the corresponding part of the crime No. 3 in the holding (2020 order 2805 case), the defendant committed the crime in question during the suspension period due to the same criminal power, etc. that is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) it is difficult to see the value of the damaged goods; (b) the Defendant made efforts to recover the damage; (c) as a result, the Defendant agreed with the victim in the trial; (d) the Defendant fully recognized the crime from the investigation stage to expressed his intent of reflect; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime; (d) the motive and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime committed, etc., the sentencing of the court of the first instance

3. It falls under Article 3 of the Judgment of the first instance court of the conclusion.