특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Although the Defendant appealed on the ground that the punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) was too excessive and unfair, each of the crimes of this case was committed by the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant invaded upon another’s residence and stolen or attempted property, and the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime, and in particular, the Defendant did not have been released without being aware of the fact that it was committed during the period of repeated crime due to the same kind of crime. In light of the circumstances and methods of the crime, repeatedness of the crime, and the number of victims, the liability for the crime is very heavy, and the Defendant did not make any effort to recover damage except for the return of anything partially damaged during the investigation process, and the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case and theories on changes, it is not recognized that the sentence of the Defendant alleged by the lower court is unfair because all of the circumstances asserted by the Defendant was too excessive.
Since the appeal by the defendant is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the judgment of the court below, the "(as to the crime of intrusion upon residence)" in Article 3 in the 4th page of the judgment of the court below is deleted, and the "proviso of Article 42" is added to "Article 50" in Article 5.