2. Although there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the damaged goods by the Defendant’s crime of this case were seized and there was no benefit of the Defendant, and that there was an attitude that the Defendant was committed by the investigative agency, the lower court, and the court of the first instance, as a substitute in the criminal investigation agency, and the court of the first instance. However, the Defendant again committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime period for which the execution of the sentence was not yet completed by larceny, and the sentencing of the lower court seems to have taken into account all favorable circumstances, and there is no change of circumstances that may differ from the lower court and the punishment. In full view of all other circumstances as shown in the records and arguments such as the Defendant’s age, character, conduct and environment, occupation, power, process of the instant crime, means and consequence, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

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