2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include the following: (a) the Defendant’s misjudgments the mistake; (b) the amount of damage to the instant larceny was not significant; (c) the commission of the crime was committed in an economically difficult wife; and (d) the health status was not good.

However, considering the fact that the Defendant had been already punished several times due to the same type of crime, but did not throw away the habit of the theft, and committed the larceny in this case over several times, the victims did not recover most of the damages, and the victims want to punish the Defendant, the lower limit of the statutory penalty on the larceny of this case is not less than six years, and the lower court sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor which is the lowest punishment within the scope of the punishment sentenced to discretionary mitigation in relation to each of the crimes of this case, and other various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s character, conduct, and family relationship, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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.