2. The fact that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crime is an element of sentencing favorable to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant started the thief crime of this case on July 23, 2009 only about two weeks after the completion of the sentence, and the thief crime of this case was committed mainly on 85 occasions from August 6, 2009 to June 10, 2015 by method such as destroying the corrective device at night and impairing the residence, etc., and the nature of the crime is very poor, and the damage amount is also 162,330,00 won, and the damage amount is about 162,30,000 won, which is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In addition, considering various sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court does not seem to be reasonable and unfair because it is too unreasonable.

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 (Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure). However, the part of "written statement of the victims" in the summary of the evidence of the judgment below as "written statement of the victims and P (as to crimes No. 11 in the year table of annexed crimes) and the CA (as to crimes No. 78 in the year table of annexed crimes)," and the part of the relevant legal provisions and the choice of punishment regarding criminal facts in the application of the statutes as "Article 32, 331 (1), 330, 329, 342 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 154 subparagraph 2, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (a fine for free driving license)" shall be corrected as "each of the following subparagraphs."