2. Although there are favorable circumstances such as the defendant's recognition of the crime of this case and his depth and reflects on the fact that there is a family member to support the defendant. However, since the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for not less than eight months for the same kind of crime and the execution of the crime of this case has been completed, the number of times of the crime has been committed, and the damage amount caused by the crime of this case has not been much specified, and the defendant has not made efforts to recover damage. The previous crime and the crime of this case are all stolen part of the fire fighting equipments installed in the apartment corridor installed in the apartment corridor, which might make it difficult to perform emergency fire-fighting activities at the time of fire, and there is no special circumstance or change to newly consider the sentencing after the sentence of the court below, and considering all the circumstances such as the defendant's character and character, environment, relationship with victims, motive, means and result of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, it is acknowledged that the court below's sentencing guidelines is appropriate.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, since it is apparent that the phrase “date, time, and place” in 2/1 of the attached Table 2 of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the statement “from the end of December 2013”, the phrase “from the end of March 2014,” it shall be corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure