2. The conclusion of the judgment is based on the circumstances favorable to the defendant that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case, and that part of the damage caused by the crime of this case was returned to the victims, and that some of the damage was agreed with the victims during the trial.

However, the crime of this case was committed on or around May 2005 by the defendant, who was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, three years of imprisonment for the same crime on or around June 2007, and ten months of imprisonment for larceny on or around June 201, and in addition, even if the defendant had been sentenced to punishment on or around June 201, the crime of this case was committed by intrusion upon the victim's residence, etc. during the repeated crime period, and there is significant character of such crime as theft. The punishment of the court below is the lowest punishment to be mitigated by considering the circumstance that the defendant committed the crime of this case in the statutory punishment prescribed for the crime of this case (limited to more than three years), and other various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive or circumstance of the crime, means and result, etc., the defendant's above assertion is too unreasonable.

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.