2. The judgment of the court below shows the attitude of reflecting the defendant's mistake by recognizing the crime. The victims do not want punishment against the defendant by mutual consent with all victims, the amount of damage by victim is minor, and there are children supporting the defendant. Some crimes are concurrent crimes with the crime of larceny for which judgment has become final and conclusive and Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment should be determined in consideration of equity with the case where judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act. However, each crime of this case is committed in favor of the defendant. Each of the crimes of this case is committed by the defendant against the defendant's attempted theft or theft of the property of many unspecified victims for a number of times, with four times that the defendant has been punished for the same crime, and some crimes committed by the defendant during the suspension period of execution due to the same kind of crime are committed against the defendant.

In full view of the above favorable circumstances and other circumstances, such as the defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the pleadings, even if considering all favorable circumstances for the defendant, it cannot be deemed unfair because the court below’s punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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.