2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized his mistake and opposed to himself, and that part of the Defendant agreed with the victim.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to be an act of theft after destroying the window of a vehicle, and the nature of the crime is not less severe, and the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime, and the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of it even though the period of the same repeated crime is in the same kind of crime. In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character, conduct, occupation and environment, motive and background leading to the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., even if considering the above circumstances favorable to the defendant, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's above assertion.

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

However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the term “application of the law” of the lower judgment ex officio is amended to read “Article 332 and Article 329 of the Criminal Act” to read “Article 332 and Article 329 of the Criminal Act (including the crime of habitual larceny and attempted habitual larceny)” to read “Article 332 and Article 329 of the Criminal Act shall be included in habitual larceny and only one habitual larceny shall be established.”

.