2. The judgment below seems to have sentenced the above punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant (such as when criminal conduct is committed), and the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant (such as theft, violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) and the records of having been punished several times, including punishment, and continuing to commit each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime due to this type of crime, and the restoration of damage was not done at all).

In light of the grounds for and the age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, various circumstances revealed by the circumstances after the crime, and other circumstances that the court below did not have any special circumstances or changes in circumstances to the punishment that the court below decided against the defendant in the first instance, the sentencing of the court below is appropriate and it cannot be deemed that it abused its discretion or deviates from the limits of discretion.

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