2. The judgment is based on the circumstances favorable to the defendant that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case as the disabled with the second degree of mental retardation, and that some of the damaged items were temporarily returned to the victims.

However, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant who habitually steals or attempted to steals cash, etc. from the victim's vehicle at least five times during the period of repeated crime, and the nature of the crime is grave. The sentence imposed by the court below is the lowest punishment that the defendant committed by discretionary mitigation, taking into account the circumstances leading to the crime of this case in the statutory penalty prescribed by the crime of this case, and other various circumstances, which are conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the motive of the crime of this case, character and conduct of the defendant, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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.