2. Determination of the instant crime is recognized that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment not less than three times with prison labor for the larceny crime, and that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the instant crime, and that the damage to the instant crime is relatively minor.

However, even though the Defendant had been sentenced eight times to imprisonment for the same crime, and had been sentenced to prison labor for more than 20 years due to the same crime, the Defendant committed the instant crime repeatedly during the repeated crime period, and even though he had been sentenced to prison life for more than 20 years, the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the repeated crime period, the nature of the crime is not good, and the victims did not recover from damage up to the trial (F wanted to have the Defendant’s wife, but F was not the victim of the instant thief in the course of escape after the Defendant committed the thief), and other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it does not seem unfair since the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

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.

Provided, That the burden of litigation costs shall be governed by the proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.