2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the defendant led to the confession of each of the crimes of this case and reflects on the value of the damaged goods, and smartphone, which is an object of possession, has been returned to the victim.

B. However, even though the defendant had the same criminal records (one time of suspended sentence, five times of fines, and two times of juvenile protective disposition), it is not determined that the court below’s sentence is too unreasonable in light of the following factors: (a) although the period of suspended sentence has lapsed and the defendant was punished by a fine during the period of suspended sentence due to the same kind of crime; (b) the victim of the larceny did not agree with the victim of the larceny; (c) the victim was not recovered; and (d) the defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case, circumstances before and after the crime, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case.

C. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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