2. The fact that the defendant recognized all the crimes and reflects the wrongness, and that the amount of damage is small and most of the damaged goods have been returned to the victims is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant had been punished for larceny more than 10 times and has been sentenced to punishment four times, and the Defendant again committed each of the larceny crimes of this case as long as he was released from prison due to his previous criminal conviction in the judgment, and the Defendant’s non-exercise of another’s resident registration certificate to avoid punishment is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In light of the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, the circumstances and results of each of the crimes in this case, and all other sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments in this case, it is judged that the sentence imposed by the court below is appropriate and unfair because it is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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.

However, in the application of the law of the lower judgment, it is apparent that “1. Aggravation of repeated crime: Aggravation of repeated crime: Article 35 of the Criminal Act” is omitted, and thus, it is corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.