2. Determination of the Defendant is recognized as a favorable sentencing factor, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized all of the crimes, showing an attitude of pening as his name, and that there is an old-age and self-maring that the body of the Defendant needs to be supported, etc.

However, the defendant has already been punished several times due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the larceny. Among them, there is no sufficient time to know about the criminal records, but to complete the execution of the final sentence, so it is also recognized that there is an unfavorable factor of sentencing, such as committing another crime of a manual similar to that of the previous larceny during the period of repeated crime.

In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, criminal records, motive and background leading to the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime, and various circumstances revealed in pleadings, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence sentenced by the first instance court is deemed appropriate, and it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, 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.

However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, among the judgment of the first instance, the “P” of the second and sixth shall be read as “W”, the “Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act” of the third and third acts as “Articles 329 and 342 of the Criminal Act”, and the “in summary of the evidence” shall be read as “Article 329 and 342 of the Criminal Act”, and the “in summary of the evidence” shall be read as

.