2. The Defendant opened an unlocked door and stolen money, thereby committing the so-called vehicle hair.

There are many frequency of crimes, and the amount of damage is not much.

Until now, the victims have not been recovered from damage, and the majority of victims have not received any remedy.

Even though the defendant had been punished for a fine twice more than the same crime, considering that the target of the crime and the method of the crime committed in this case similar to the previous one, the criminal responsibility of the defendant is heavy.

Since the sentence corresponding to it is inevitable to declare it.

Although there are circumstances such as the defendant's acknowledgement of the crime of this case and the fact that the defendant has no criminal record exceeding the fine, the court below's punishment is determined to be within the appropriate range of punishment corresponding to the responsibility, and it does not seem to be unfair because the punishment is too unreasonable, considering the above damage scale and frequency of the crime, equity in the punishment for the crime similar to the crime of this case, the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and all other circumstances constituting the conditions of sentencing, such as the circumstances after the crime of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

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 is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.