2. In full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant committed a larceny again even after being subject to multiple criminal punishments for the same crime; (b) the frequency of the thief crimes is not significant; (c) the Defendant opened a door of a vehicle with no means of committing the larceny; and (d) brings cash and cellular phone; (c) the nature of the crime is not good; (d) disadvantageous factors such as the Defendant’s failure to recover damage; and (e) favorable factors of sentencing, such as the fact that economic circumstances are contrary to the Defendant; (e) other favorable factors of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character, conduct and environment, and the scope of recommended sentences for sentencing specified in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, and environment, the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable

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.