2. The judgment of the court below is inappropriate in light of the following: (a) the defendant recognized a criminal act; (b) the defendant shows the intent of self-support by actively treating the defendant; (c) the defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime since 1995; (d) most of them have been sentenced to imprisonment for a long time after being released; and (e) the criminal act of this case is a repeated offender who committed only one month after the completion of the sentence; and (d) the defendant tried to open the door of a parked vehicle in a short state of replacement; and (e) the circumstances leading up to the crime; (e) the circumstances leading up to the crime; (e) the defendant's character and conduct after the crime; and (e) the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court; and (e) the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines [the punishment of the court below, such as drug crime group, medication, simple possession; (vi) the aggravated area (specificly aggravated persons: the previous imprisonment with prison labor); and (e) August 16, 2008].

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.