2. Determination: (a) the Defendant: (b) intruded the restaurant two times, stolen the property by intrusioning the glass windows, etc. into the restaurant; (c) stolen the property at night by multiplying two places in the restaurant; (d) stolen the property from the kimchi shop through four times; and (d) stolen the property from the vehicle; and (d) stolen the property from the vehicle on five occasions on the ground that the vehicle’s front wheels parked in the five occasions on the ground that the project failure has been commercialized; (d) the case of each of the instant crimes was not easy; (d) the Defendant continued to commit the larceny at the same place; (e) the Defendant was found at several times; (e) most of the damage caused by each of the instant crimes was not recovered; and (e) the Defendant was not punished by imprisonment for 204 years with prison labor due to larceny; and (e) the Defendant was punished by a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for 2019.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant reflects the mistake, appears to be a living crime, the amount of damage caused by each crime of this case is not much likely, and some damage is recovered, etc. are favorable circumstances.

In full view of such circumstances and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the instant argument and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the defendant's appeal is groundless.