2. In full view of the overall sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case and the fact that the defendant had the same criminal records and had not been recovered from damage, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition

[However, the summary of the evidence of the judgment below is clear that the "BX" in Part 8 and the "DZ" in Part 14 is a clerical error in the "OM". Thus, the prosecutor shall, ex officio, correct it pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Meanwhile, while submitting an application for modification of an indictment on May 15, 2015, the prosecutor stated that the applicable provisions should add "Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act" to the applicable provisions in addition to the applicable provisions, but did not specify whether the above applicable provisions should be added to any of the criminal facts in the list of crimes attached to the indictment. In the event a criminal who committed habitual larceny intrudes upon his residence as a means of the crime, the act of intrusion upon residence is incorporated into habitual larceny, and only one crime of habitual larceny is established, and it does not constitute a separate crime of intrusion upon residence (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Do1573, Dec. 26, 1984).