2. The judgment below held that the defendant committed the crime of this case in depth while committing the crime of this case; the victim D's bicycle was returned to the victim; the defendant was punished for larceny over eight times; the defendant was punished for the same crime of this case; the defendant committed the same crime again under the conditions that he was punished several times for the same crime of this case; and the value of the damaged goods is significant.

The defendant sentenced two years to imprisonment in consideration of the fact that the victims' severe property is not correct, and that the victims' damage has not been recovered.

In full view of the fact that the sentence imposed by the court below in the court below is the lowest of the statutory penalty, the sentencing of the court below appears to have been within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the court below in the trial of the court below. Thus, the sentencing of the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too uneasible.

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