2. The amount of damage for each habitual theft of this case is not a large amount, and the stolen vehicle was returned to the victim, and the attempted crime is also committed.

The defendant is a university student over 20 years old on the side, and there is a lot of room for edification improvement.

All of the crimes of this case are recognized by the defendant, and there is no record of criminal punishment in addition to juvenile protective disposition.

On the other hand, the defendant habitually carried a building of another person at night or during a week, and stolen money or goods, or stolen a vehicle without a driver's license, and the defendant was forced to leave the vehicle from the police officer without a driver's license, and suffered injury in need of six weeks of medical treatment.

In light of the fact that there are many frequency of crimes, various methods and objects of theft, and the injury of interfering with the execution of special duties is highly dangerous and serious result, etc., the quality of crimes is not good.

Despite the fact that the Defendant had been subject to juvenile protective disposition several times due to theft and violation of Road Traffic Act, etc., the Defendant committed habitual larceny of this case, and committed the crime of habitual larceny of this case without being aware of it even though he was investigated as the victim, and committed several offenses of habitual larceny of this case.

In this respect, the defendant seems to have weak awareness of compliance and lack awareness of the strictness of judicial procedure.

The defendant did not agree with the victims, or did not receive any letter from the victims.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is correct.