A. In relation to each larceny in the judgment of the court below (a thief) each of the larcenys in the judgment of the court below, the defendant was only aware that the building materials in an emptyter were abandoned, and there was no intention to larceny.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as above, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail in the part on “the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion and judgment thereon” among the reasons for the judgment. Examining the lower court’s judgment in comparison with the evidential materials, the lower court can fully acknowledge the facts charged in this case that the Defendant intentionally brought about building materials owned by the Victim AA.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Although the Defendant made a confession of the crime of fraud, in full view of various sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, occupation, motive, means and consequence of the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, without being aware of the crime of fraud during the period of suspension of execution, and committing the crime of fraud (nine times) and larceny (four times) in a short period, and the injury was not completely recovered.

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.