2. The crime of this case committed by the Defendant by intrusioning on the house by deceiving the Defendant, or by finding any key hidden to the front door, using it, thereby destroying another’s property, and by purchasing stolen-friendly credit cards, the nature of the crime is not easy in light of the method and frequency of the crime.

The Defendant committed the instant crime at least five times with the same crime [thief (thief)] and at least four months after the completion of the final sentence despite criminal punishment.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, and the result of the application of the sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Committee, the lower court’s sentence that determined the lower court’s maximum punishment that has undergone discretionary mitigation is unreasonable, even if considering the circumstances (the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victims, and his mistake is deeply divided).

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.