2. The fact that the Defendant reflects his mistake in depth, the amount of damage is relatively small, and the injured party does not want the punishment of the Defendant by agreement with the injured party, and raising the victimized child suffering from the congenital disease is favorable to the Defendant.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced to the suspension of imprisonment twice in 2014 and 2017 for the same crime, the fact that the Defendant again went to the instant crime during the suspension period, and that the nature of the instant crime committed by intrusion upon another person’s residence and stolen property is not sufficient, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

As above, there is no change in circumstances that could be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the court below until the court below was sentenced to the disadvantage or favorable sentencing factors of the defendant, and all of the sentencing factors in the arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, health status, sex, conduct, environment, family relationship, motive for the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., are considered, the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing 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 grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.