2. The judgment of the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, and the fact that some of the crimes were committed in the attempted crime is favorable to the defendant.

However, the fact that the amount of damage (as approximately KRW 26 million), most of the damage is not recovered, that the defendant has a record of receiving juvenile protective disposition due to the same kind of crime in the past, the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing committee of the Supreme Court / [the scope of recommending punishment] the basic area (one year to two years and six months) (special mitigation) (special mitigation) (in the case of intrusion upon a place other than indoor residential space (type 4) (special mitigation) (in the case of a person under special mitigation), the maximum sentence is unfavorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances that led to the instant crime, including the circumstances and motive, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing is not acceptable.

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

[However, it is clear that the "Article 342, Article 331 (1) and (1) and Article 30 (the attempted special larceny) of the Criminal Act" in Part 5 of the judgment below is a clerical error in the "Article 342, Article 331 (2) and (1), and Article 30 (the attempted special larceny) of the Criminal Act" in Part 18 of the judgment of the court below, and it is correct ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.