2. The circumstances are acknowledged, such as the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects his mistake, that most of the instant crime was committed in the attempted crime, that property damage was minor, and that the Defendant would not be punished by larceny. However, this seems to have already been considered in the sentencing of the lower court.

In addition, the instant crime committed was committed by the Defendant by opening the door of a vehicle parked eight times and attempted to steals or steals the property. In light of the repetition of the crime, and the method and contents of the crime, etc., the crime was considerably poor, and the Defendant has been subject to criminal punishment several times for the same crime. In particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime before seven months have elapsed since the release without being aware of it even though it was a repeated term of the same crime, and the victims did not have been used until now, taking full account of the circumstances such as equity between the same and similar incidents and sentencing, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.