2. The lower court, based on the favorable circumstances, determined that the thief was restored to a considerable number of victims, and that four thief victims do not want punishment, and that the Defendant actively cooperates in the investigation by self-denunciation and has a history of punishment for the same kind of crime several times, and determined a sentence by considering the unfavorable circumstances, and by considering the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee.

The grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the defendant appear to be the circumstances that the court below had already taken into account when determining the defendant's punishment, and there are no circumstances to deem that the above conditions of sentencing have changed in the appellate court.

Rather, in addition to the above sentencing conditions, considering the following: (a) the Defendant mainly intruded into another’s residence and committed a larceny; (b) committed a larceny in a short period of time; (c) the nature of the crime is not good in that the Defendant repeated the crime; and (d) the victim I suffered damage, but failed to recover or agree on the damage, the punishment imposed by the lower court is appropriate and unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.