2. The lower court determined that: (a) imposed a punishment on the Defendant; (b) under the unfavorable circumstances; (c) each of the crimes of this case was bad in the nature of the crime; (d) theft was considerably dangerous; (e) the Defendant did not take any measures to recover damage; and (e) the victims did not commit each of the crimes of this case even within the repeated period for not more than three months after the execution of one year and eight months was completed due to habitual larceny; and (b) again committed each of the crimes of this case within the repeated period due to the completion of one year and eight months; (c) the Defendant was aware of the facts charged; (d) the Defendant voluntarily surrendered against each of the crimes of this case in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny); and (e) the degree of assault used by the Defendant to escape arrest with respect to the robbery of this case.

Of the circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of unfair sentencing through the statement of reasons for appeal, it seems that the lower court has already taken full account of the fact that the Defendant recognized the facts charged and reflected the charges, and that the quasi-Robbery crime was committed in a contingent manner.

In addition, after the judgment of the court below was sentenced, victims suffered damages.

The circumstances that the mother of the defendant had agreed with the victims can not be found, and according to the records, the mother of the defendant is living together with the criminal defendant's punishment, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant's assistance is particularly necessary.

In addition, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted on the grounds that there are no special circumstances to change the sentencing of the court below.

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.