2. Recognizing that the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects his mistake, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime due to economic difficulties, and that property damage caused by the instant crime is not significant, and most damaged items were temporarily returned, and that one victim does not want the punishment of the Defendant, it is deemed that the lower court already considered in sentencing.

In addition, the instant crime was committed by the Defendant, who stolen or attempted to steals money and valuables on a vehicle parked by the Defendant, and embezzled one resident registration certificate acquired on the road, in light of the applicable law and content of the crime, etc., and the Defendant did not make specific efforts to obtain a letter of suspicion from the victim, and the Defendant committed the instant crime even though there were two times of suspended execution and three times of criminal punishment of fines for the same and similar crimes, and taking full account of the following circumstances: (a) equity in sentencing between the sentencing and the sentencing as well as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.