2. The Defendant recognized that all of the instant crimes were committed, thereby opposing his mistake.

The defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case for living.

The amount of damage to the crime of this case is not so big.

These circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant had been convicted of having been sentenced more than six times for the same crime, and even three months after having been released from the prison, again committed the instant crime, and committed habitual larcenys over 20 times during the repeated crime period.

The victims have not been agreed to recover from damage, and the victims have not been agreed.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

There is no special change in circumstances in the past.

It is difficult for the court below to take more favorable measures against the defendant by imposing a maximum sentence after reducing the statutory penalty.

In addition to this point, the sentencing of the court below is not deemed unfair because the sentencing of the court below is too inappropriate, considering the various circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless.

(However, the phrase “ around 19:00 on June 19, 2013,” which is the date and time of No. 7 of the crime sight table as indicated in the holding of the court below, is clear that the victim’s “P” is each clerical error of the victim’s “D,” and such rectification is ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.