2. The judgment is based on the following: (a) the Defendant made a statement that the Defendant led to confession of the crime of this case and reflects his fault in depth; (b) the amount of damage as a living type crime is relatively minor and the economic situation is not sufficiently sufficient; and (c) some of the damaged goods are returned to the victim.

However, in light of the means and methods of the thief committed by the Defendant, the thief committed by the Defendant is not less than the nature of the crime in light of the means and methods of the crime; the crime committed by the Defendant committed the crime of the same or similar crime in around 2010 without being aware of the fact that there was a record of being sentenced to suspended sentence due to the crime of the same or similar crime; the damage and the agreement or complete recovery from damage was not made; the lower court appears to have sentenced a lower sentence than the lower sentence of the recommended sentence that the sentencing guidelines set forth in the sentencing guidelines was set in full consideration of the circumstances of the Defendant; there was no special change of circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court at the time of the first instance trial; and in full view of all other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character, character, intelligence and environment, the motive and background of the crime in this case, circumstances after the crime, criminal records, and family relations, etc., the Defendant’s assertion is not justified.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.