2. The lower court determined that: (a) under the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, the crime was not good considering the following: (b) the Defendant recognized the entire crime; (c) the Defendant committed the crime; (d) there was no effort to recover damage; (d) there was no effort to repeatedly commit the same kind of crime during the period of repeated crime since 6 months have not elapsed since the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment or imprisonment with prison labor; and (e) it was not significant to deem the degree of property damage caused by each of the instant crimes; and (e) it was favorable to the Defendant, under the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as: (c) the Defendant’s planned crepit of the victim’s house by taking advantage of the creshion of the victim’s house and destroying the victim’s house into account the series of circumstances and methods of theft; (d) the fact that the Defendant took property over several times; and (e) there was no effort to recover damage; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior; (e) the Defendant’s motive and circumstances; and (e) the circumstances of the Defendant’s crime.

In full view of the elements of the sentencing, the sentencing criteria, and the sentencing in the same and similar cases of the lower court, the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that can be deemed to be unfair to maintain the lower court’s sentencing as it is.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

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.