2. The judgment of the defendant is recognized as a favorable sentencing factor, such as the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case as well as his attitude to repent, that part of the victims do not want punishment against the defendant, and that the defendant's health condition seems not good.

However, since the Defendant was sentenced several times to habitually thief crimes, and the execution of the final sentence has not yet been completed, the Defendant habitually committed the larceny over 30 times at the same time during the period of repeated crimes, and the liability for such crime is grave. The instant crime is also recognized as an unfavorable sentencing factor, such as the following: (a) the instant crime was mainly punished before the crime, such as the crime committed by the victim, cutting the locks using a locker between the victim’s house and then thiefing the victim’s house; and (b) the relevant method is planned and professional; and (c) the victim did not recover from the victims’ damage, except where the damaged goods are returned.

In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, criminal records, motive and background leading to the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime, and various circumstances revealed in pleadings, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence sentenced by the first instance court is deemed appropriate, and it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.