2. It is recognized that the Defendant, who made a judgment, led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects his mistake, and did not have significant property damage caused by the instant crime, but it appears to have already been considered in the sentencing of the lower court.

In addition, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant by destroying the locking device of the entrance three times and destroying the residence, and the nature of the crime was very poor in light of the method and content of the crime, and there was a history of criminal punishment for the Defendant several times in the same crime. In particular, the Defendant committed the crime of this case before five months have elapsed since the release without being aware of it even though it was a repeated period for the same crime, and the Defendant cannot find out any trace of efforts made by the Defendant for the recovery of damage, taking full account of the following circumstances: equity in sentencing with sentencing with the case of the same and similar type, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.