2. The fact that the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects the mistake, and that part of the damaged goods were recovered, etc. are considered favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed in the victim E's residence where the defendant temporarily resided, stolen the above victim's property, invaded upon the office at the new wall time, and then withdrawn or transferred KRW 1,0310,000 from the above victim's account using the passbook of the victim C, which used the passbook of the victim C, which used the above theft victim's account, and the crime of this case is not proper in light of the crime method, contents, and amount of damage, etc., and the crime is not sufficiently recovered, and there is still a history of criminal punishment on several occasions due to theft and fraud, and the defendant committed the crime of this case even in the period of probation due to night building intrusion theft, and all other sentencing conditions in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.