2. The fact that the judgment of the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects the fact that most of the damaged goods were restored to the victims is favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is habitually committed by the defendant twice through the gaps of the property owner, and the crime of this case is not likely to be committed in light of the contents and methods of the crime.

Although the Defendant had been already punished six times or more for the same crime, the Defendant began to commit the crime and committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime period, 50 days after the execution of the final punishment.

The victims are still trying to punish the defendant.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of these circumstances and other factors of sentencing, including the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing, the age, criminal defendant's sex, and environment, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.