2. The lower court determined that the Defendant exceeded the scope of the recommended punishment (one year to two years) according to the sentencing guidelines in consideration of the favorable circumstances that the Defendant led to the confession of the crime, the fact that the Defendant was punished several times for the larceny crime, the fact that the Defendant repeated the same repeated crime period during the same kind of repeated crime, the fact that the injury was not recovered, the risk of intrusion upon residence, etc., and determined a minor sentence (ten months of imprisonment).

The grounds for the improper sentencing (a confession and reflect) alleged by the defendant are shown to have been determined by the court below, taking into account sufficient factors in determining the punishment against the defendant, and the conditions of the sentencing have changed differently.

There is no circumstance to see the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and considering various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, the sentence of the court below is deemed appropriate.

Defendant

The argument is without merit.

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