2. There are extenuating circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant’s judgment on the grounds of appeal reflects the mistake, that one of the larceny was attempted, and that one of the larceny was returned to the victim.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times for the same crime, and that the same crime was repeatedly committed on 15 days after the Defendant was committed in prison and released from prison, and that the risk and the nature of the crime were not mitigated in light of the several methods and contents of the larceny crime, and that there was no special change in circumstances or circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment was rendered, and that there was no change in the circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant, and that there was no other various circumstances that form the conditions for the argument and the sentencing indicated in the record of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime was committed, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable, since the sentence imposed by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.