The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of this case is that the defendant stolen the victims' property at least six times, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the defendant did not receive suspicion from the victims except H, and the damage of the victims seems not to have been recovered, and the defendant has been punished several times due to the same crime (six times of punishment, six times of imprisonment, and two times of imprisonment). In particular, on December 4, 2014, the Daegu District Court sentenced the victims of imprisonment for the same crime at the Daegu District Court for five months and completed the execution of the punishment on December 22, 2014. On April 1, 2016, the Daegu District Court sentenced the victims of eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime, etc., and committed each of the crimes of this case without being aware of the fact that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being able to receive punishment for each repeated crime after the execution of the punishment was completed on July 14, 2016.

However, since the defendant led to the confession of each of the crimes in this case, the defendant's mistake is against his own depth, the defendant seems to have reached each of the crimes in this case for the purpose of maintaining his livelihood in an economically difficult situation because he was unable to be supported by his children, there are circumstances considering the circumstances. The total amount of damage caused by each of the crimes in this case is not more than KRW 720,00,000,000 in total, and H expressed his intention not to punish the defendant among the victims of each of the crimes in this case, and the defendant was not designated as a recipient of basic living because he used the cargo in each of the crimes in this case and owned the cargo in this case, but it seems that the above cargo could be scrapped with the aid of the competent administrative agency and designated as a recipient of basic living in the future. It seems that the defendant's economic difficulty would have been improved to some extent, and that the risk of re-offending is not significant since the cargo was destroyed.