2. The judgment of the defendant is recognized that the defendant divided his mistake, the amount of individual damage is not so significant, and some of the damaged articles were returned to the victims.

However, the Defendant has been sentenced to a fine on several occasions, suspension of execution, and punishment, and among them, the Defendant committed most of the instant crimes without being aware of the period of repeated crime due to the same type of crime even though he/she had been sentenced once to a suspended sentence, and even though he/she had been sentenced one time to a suspended sentence, the Defendant committed most of the instant crimes without being aware of the period of repeated crime due to the same type of crime; considerable damage was not recovered; there was no change of circumstances that could otherwise determine the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Sentencing Commission, such as the motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, shall not be acknowledged to be unfair because the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. However, since it is obvious that "the defendant's appeal is a clerical error of larceny, etc." in the part 2 of the judgment of the court below, it is obvious that "the criminal history" in the part 2 of the judgment of the court below is a misunderstanding of larceny, etc., it is corrected ex officio pursuant to