2. Determination is based on the following: (a) the amount of damage caused by each of the larcenys in this case is not very significant; (b) the damage was returned to the victim of the larceny on November 24, 2014; (c) the victim of the larceny on June 7, 2014 was the Defendant’s wife; and (d) the Defendant was in the trial on June 7, 2014 when he was in the trial, the Defendant was aware of the thief; (c) the Defendant’s health is not good; and (d) the Defendant’s spouse suffers from the quality of adultery; and (e) there is a favorable circumstance for the Defendant.

However, even though the Defendant had a large number of records of punishment for larceny and had been sentenced to punishment or suspended execution several times, the Defendant committed each of the larceny crimes of this case, and committed the larceny crime of November 24, 2014, which was filed a request for detention warrant on the ground of the larceny crime of June 7, 2014, and subsequently dismissed.

In addition, the Defendant committed a crime without a license on May 28, 2015 among the attempts that were tried with the aforementioned crimes, and considering the fact that the nature of the crime without a license itself is not hot, it is a normal situation to reveal the Defendant’s attitude of light of the law.

As seen above, although the Defendant recognized the thief (i.e., June 7, 2014) in the trial, the fact that the Defendant denied the crime due to a defense that was difficult to obtain despite objective evidence and circumstances in the lower trial, or that the specific contents of the thief (i.e., rebuttals submitted in the trial) cannot be seen as attributable to a serious reflective nature.

In light of these circumstances and other conditions of sentencing as indicated in the pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, background and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.