2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the Defendant recognized his/her criminal act; (b) most of the damaged items were returned to the victims; and (c) the victim I and I agreed to do so.

However, the defendant habitually intruded on another person's house for four months and stolen clothes, bags, etc.; the defendant was punished for the same crime or was sentenced to juvenile protective disposition eight times; the three times among them was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to habitual larceny; however, the last sentence (three years of imprisonment) has been completed; and the crime of this case is committed again within the repeated period after the execution of the punishment was completed; and the method of the crime of this case is similar to that of the previous punishment.

In full view of all such circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive for committing the instant crime, and the circumstances after committing the instant crime in the trial, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

As there is no change in sentencing conditions that can be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed unfair because it is too large.

Therefore, the defendant does not accept the defendant's unfair argument.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit and is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the victim’s “D” in No. 1 of the “crime List” in the lower judgment is obvious that it is a clerical error, and thus, the Defendant’s appeal is corrected to “I” in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.