2. The judgment of the court below seems to have caused the instant thief to commit the instant thief, which led to the Defendant to commit the instant thief. While there were no extenuating circumstances such as the Defendant’s confession of the instant thief. The Defendant had been sentenced several times due to the crime of larceny and intrusion upon residence, etc. On June 15, 201, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced two years to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. (thief) at the Seoul Central District Court on July 21, 2011, sentenced the Defendant to a repeated term on June 15, 201, while the execution of the said punishment was completed, it appears that the Defendant committed the instant thief without being able to commit the instant stief, from the beginning, and caused the instant thief to commit the instant thief, and the victim was not subject to punishment against the Defendant.

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.