2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the confession of the instant crime in the trial room and the statement that the Defendant is divided; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime with the aim of preparing living expenses, etc.; and (c) the amount of damage incurred from the larceny is relatively minor.

On the other hand, there are three criminal records of the defendant, who were sentenced to punishment due to the crime of larceny, fraud, robbery, attempted robbery, etc., the crime of this case under the same veterinary act again during the repeated crime period due to larceny, the restoration of damage was not done at all, and the victim wants to be punished, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In light of the above circumstances and the fact that there is no change of circumstances that the original court’s punishment is to be changed in the trial, and that there is no other special reason to change the situation, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with victims, motive, background, means and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, criminal records, family relations, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is appropriate and 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 ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.