2. The judgment is recognized that the defendant recognized the crime and seriously reflects the fact, but the defendant had a significant record of the same crime, such as having been punished three times from around 2006 to thief, and repeated criminal acts over 11 times during the period of 3 months, and did not support the recovery of damage to the defendant. Each of the crimes of this case constitutes a repeated crime, and each of the crimes of this case constitutes a repeated crime, and it seems that the defendant's motive is due to the realization of the theft habit, rather than due to the difficulty of living.

In full view of the fact that no additional sentencing data has been submitted in the above circumstances and the trial court, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments and records, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is deemed to be inappropriate and too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.