2. The Defendant is recognized as a favorable sentencing factor, such as the fact that he/she has led to his/her confession of all of his/her crimes, and her mistake is divided.

However, the defendant has been punished several times due to the larceny crime, and it is also recognized that there are unfavorable factors for sentencing, such as the fact that the defendant again committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime and did not take any measures for recovery from damage, after being sentenced to two times due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and other circumstances revealed in the pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the first instance court is deemed to be adequate, and it cannot be deemed that it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion 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 ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the Seoul Eastern District Court of Grade 16 in the first instance is clear that it is a clerical error in the "Seoul Eastern District Court" branch of the Seoul District Court, so it shall be corrected and the summary of the evidence shall be corrected as it is obvious that the statement of the result of surveying the fingerprints at the scene of crime was omitted, and it shall be corrected as it