2. The judgment shows the attitude of the defendant to regard his criminal act as a substitute in the investigative agency, the court below, and the court of the trial, and there were circumstances that may be favorable consideration, such as the fact that the defendant was aware of his accomplice in the investigative agency, the fact that he provided information to the investigation agency, and that he must support his mother and wife. However, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime in 1998 and 2001, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny around July 5, 2010 and was completed on July 5, 2010, and was committed the crime in this case without being informed of himself during the repeated crime period, the sentencing of the court below seems to have taken into account all the above favorable circumstances, and there is no change of circumstances that could change the age, character and behavior, environment, occupation, career, career, the circumstances, means and consequence of the crime in this case, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.