2. The circumstances that can be considered in light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the accused was committed while committing the crime, and his mistake is divided, and that he appears to have been relatively easily exposed to the crime due to the rapid growth environment in Korea.

However, in full view of various sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court does not seem to be unreasonable because the sentence imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable within the recommended range of punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee by the Supreme Court. In particular, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable, considering the following: (a) during the repeated period of a repeated crime due to habitual larceny; (b) two months have not passed since the Defendant was released therefrom; (c) the value of the stolen money and valuables was not significant; and (d) there was no evidence to deem that the stolen money and valuables were recovered from damage.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.

(However, Article 319 of the Criminal Code is clear that it is a clerical error in Article 319(1) of the Criminal Code, and thus, it shall be corrected in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.