Judgment

The fact that the defendant recognizes the crime and reflects it is a favorable sentencing factor.

However, each of the crimes of this case is an unfavorable sentencing factor, such as the so-called intrusion larceny, the frequency of the crimes committed three times, the danger of the method of the crimes, etc., and the fact that there are many kinds of crimes including the punishment and the criminal records of the defendant already committed, and there are no effort of the defendant to recover damage, other than the return of certain damaged articles. The court below seems to have determined the punishment by fully considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant. The court below did not change the circumstances favorable to the defendant. The court below did not have any change in the circumstances leading up to the crime of this case, and other various sentencing materials presented in the arguments such as the background of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, the age of the defendant, sexual conduct, environment, etc., and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee [the basic area of larceny No. 4 (Larceny) for general property: Imprisonment with prison labor for one to four years (one year and seven months (one/2 and three months in total due to concurrent crimes, the upper limit of the punishment scope of punishment]. Therefore, the court below's allegation is not justified.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.