2. The conclusion that the Defendant recognized the crime, thereby going against the Defendant, the crime was committed once, and the amount of damage was relatively large, and the considerable portion of the damaged goods was returned to the victim is the circumstances favorable to the Defendant.

However, considering the criminal records of the defendant, including the fact that the defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crime in the past, and the criminal records of the defendant, the method and result of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court [the theft crime group, habitual and repeated crime theft (general habitual and repeated larceny), type 1, basic area, 2 years and 4 years], it cannot be said that the lower court’s punishment amounting to the lower limit of the sentenced sentencing guidelines 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.