2. The fact that the Defendant made a confession and reflects all of the instant crimes, and that the victim did not want the punishment or agreed to do so is favorable to the Defendant.

However, on August 27, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for two years for the crime of larceny under the "Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc." in the Suwon District Court's Ansan Branch on the same day. On July 3, 2012, the Defendant completed the execution of the sentence and again committed the crime of habitual larceny of the same kind before two months have passed since then, and there was a history of punishment for the same crime.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, family relation, criminal record, character and conduct, environment, motive and method of each of the instant crimes, circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentence that sentenced the Defendant to the least imprisonment within the scope of discretionary mitigation 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 since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However) However, it is obvious that the proviso to Article 35 and Article 42 of the Criminal Act is a clerical error in the proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act [the proviso to Article 35 and Article 42 of the Criminal Act has a criminal record of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which ends the execution of punishment on July 3, 2012] of the lower judgment’s application of the Act