2. It is recognized that: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflects his mistake; and (b) the amount of damage to each of the instant crimes is not so significant.

However, the Defendant has been punished by imprisonment, suspension of execution, and fine several times due to the same crime; the Defendant committed each of the instant offenses again during the period of repeated crime; the Defendant committed repeatedly the same kind of crimes; the Defendant again committed the instant crime of larceny at night, immediately after being prosecuted after being investigated by an investigative agency due to the instant thief and intrusion upon structure by committing the instant larceny; and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, background, method, method, consequence, criminal record, and circumstances before and after the instant crime; and considering all the sentencing conditions specified in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, circumstance, means, method, consequence, criminal record, etc., the Defendant’s sentence imposed by the

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal of this case is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.