2. Although the defendant's mistake and reflects his depth, the defendant has already been punished by imprisonment with prison labor and a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the same kind of crime, and the defendant committed the crime of this case habitually during the period of repeated crime starting from the time when the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime was completed to the end of one year and two months, and the victim committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime. The victims did not completely recover from the damage inflicted on the defendant due to the crime of this case. The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant was reduced by discretionary mitigation in consideration of all the sentencing conditions favorable to the defendant, and the scope of the recommended sentence prescribed in the sentencing guidelines [the range of recommending punishment] is sentenced to the lower limit of the basic area (two to four years) of habitual and repeated larceny. Other circumstances such as the motive and background leading up to the defendant's crime of this case, the circumstances before and after the crime, the defendant's age, character and behavior, occupation, family relation, etc., are considered, it cannot be deemed unfair to render a sentence too unfair.

3. As such, 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.

(1) However, in the application of the law of the court below, the "Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act" is clearly erroneous entry under Article 48 (1) 1 and 3 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the correction is made ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.