2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant are as follows: (a) the Defendant recognized that all of the instant crimes were committed; (b) reflects the mistake; (c) the amount of damage incurred by the theft crime is relatively low; and (d) the Defendant deemed to have committed the instant larceny crime or the offense violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to difficulties in living

However, within three years from the completion of the execution of the sentence, the defendant was sentenced twice or more times as habitually larceny and was sentenced to the punishment of this case again, and the CCTV in the restaurant where he had worked as a delivery source was invaded at night, cut off all CCTV in the restaurant, habitually stolen 50,000 won in cash from the Kakter credit cooperative, operated the cargo vehicle with no license twice, and lent the means of access used for electronic financial transactions. In light of the circumstances, contents, results, etc. of each of the crimes of this case, the crime was not good, and the defendant was sentenced five times due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the execution of the final sentence was not completed, again committed the thief in this case during the period of a repeated offense for which one year has not passed since the execution of the sentence was completed, and the distance of the defendant driving without a license is not shorter than the distance of the defendant without any license, and it cannot be viewed that there is no change in the sentencing range of the sentencing of this case.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as there is no ground for appeal.