2. The defendant confessions and objects to the judgment.

Although the amount of damage caused by the crime of this case is significant

Although it is not possible to hold the defendant guilty of the same crime, he/she shall be held responsible for the crime of this case corresponding to the crime of this case only one month after he/she was sentenced to a punishment due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief).

Although the Defendant alleged that he had experienced an influent family environment at the time of a year, and that he reached the crime of this case, considering the Defendant’s age, physical condition, etc., it seems that the circumstance alleged by the Defendant cannot be rationalized at any time by the time.

In addition, the crime of this case is not a good and the risk of recidivism is considerably high in terms of the same way as the previous method, which steals Nowon-do, dypology, etc. from a vehicle parked on the street of the crime of this case.

Some of the damaged goods have returned to the victim because they were returned to the victim, but four of the victims still want to punish the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, 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.