2. The lower court rendered a sentence in consideration of the following: (a) the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable to the Defendant; (b) the first offense [the scope of the recommended punishment] [the fourth type (4 months to one year and six months) for general property; (c) the special mitigation area (4 months to one year and six months); (d) the offense which is not punishable [the scope of the recommended punishment] when a person intrudes into a place other than an indoor residential space; (d) the offense which is not punishable [the scope of the recommended punishment] for general property (4 months to one year and six months); and (d) the special mitigation area (4 months to one year and six months] for the special mitigation area (the livelihood of a person subject to special mitigation]; and (d) the scope of the final sentencing due to the aggravation of the majority who is not punishable; and (d) the scope of imprisonment for four months to three months; and (e) the final sentencing due to the aggravation of the majority who is not punishable.

In full view of the facts that are the conditions for sentencing in the trial, in particular, the fact that the defendant has been sentenced twice to a suspended sentence for the same kind of crime, and the sentencing guidelines, the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in its discretion.

There is no circumstance that it is unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or that the judgment of the court below is unfair.

In addition, even if the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances, and result of the crime, etc. are considered, the sentence of the court below is proper and too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. 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 for conclusion is without merit.