2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant are that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes, and most of the damaged items were temporarily returned to the victims, and that the victim C, R, and W did not want to be punished.

On the other hand, the crime of this case committed by the defendant committed or attempted to steals the victims' property over 26 occasions, and committed a crime with heavy liability in light of the background, contents, frequency, period, etc. of the crime, the defendant was already sentenced to imprisonment several times due to the same crime, and there was a history of punishment several times for the same crime in the past, and the defendant committed the crime of this case only for a period of 6 months after the release at once, and many victims want to punish the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct and environment, the motive and background leading to the instant crime, the means and methods of committing the crime, and the circumstances after committing the instant crime, all the sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of the instant case, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee (three to four years of imprisonment), etc., the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.