2. Although the defendant's profit from the crime of this case is weak, even though he had the record of juvenile protective disposition several times due to the same crime, repeated the crime of this case, failed to properly implement the existing juvenile protective disposition, special larceny and attempted special larceny are provided for by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than ten years. The court below sentenced punishment by discretionary mitigation in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be additionally considered in the trial, and other various circumstances, which include the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances after the crime, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., as well as the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments and records of this case, the court below's punishment imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

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.