The sentence of the court below (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The crime of this case committed each of the following offenses: (a) the Defendant invaded upon another’s residence, stolen goods, and attempted to steals goods to be the key of the stolen vehicle; and (b) committed unlawful use of the stolen credit card.

The circumstances favorable to the defendant can be considered in light of the following: the defendant's mistake is too late, the confession of all crimes of this case, the degree of damage is not much significant, and the fact that part of stolen damage was returned to the victim.

On the other hand, even though the Defendant had been punished six times for a thief crime, the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case at least ten months after the completion of the execution of the punishment, and the Act on the Acceptance of Crimes also commits another crime by infringing upon the residence, cutting down the goods and committing another crime with the key to the stolen vehicle, credit card, etc., and making a serious effort to reach an agreement with the victims.

In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because it is groundless.