2. Even if the judgment of the court below is based on the following facts: (a) each of the crimes of this case was led to confessions of all of the crimes of this case and reflects them; (b) economic difficulties led to the occurrence of each of the crimes of this case; (c) damage amount is relatively small; (d) partial larceny was attempted; (e) a significant part of the damaged goods was returned to victims; and (e) there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime after 1999, each of the crimes of this case was committed in this case, even though each of the crimes of this case was committed in this case: (a) the defendant stolen property by intrusion on daily necessities at night; (d) he acquired the card lost by the victim; and (e) used the above card for more than four times; and (e) the victim stolen or attempted to steals goods in the vehicle on nine occasions; and (e) it was related to the attempted crimes, and (e) the victim and the victim did not reach an agreement with the victim up to the trial; and (e) the defendant’s motive and circumstances of the crime of this case committed committed are too unreasonable.

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.