2. The Defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case, thereby contravening the wrongness.

Goods damaged by habitual larceny was returned to all victims, and the degree of injury suffered by the victim of the robbery was relatively minor.

It seems that there are young children who have to care for the defendant, and they were committed each of the crimes of this case as they have difficulties in living.

These points are favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, in light of the fact that the amount of stolen property by the defendant is a large amount, and that the elderly victim who is vulnerable to the crime intrudes into the house and commits violence and forcibly takes the property, the nature of the crime is heavy.

The Defendant did not know even though he had been subject to criminal punishment for several times due to the larceny crime, and again committed the larceny of the instant repeated crime during the period of repeated crime.

The victims did not receive any statements from them.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

As above, comprehensively taking account of the sentencing circumstances, including the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and other factors, such as the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of committing the crime, as well as the circumstances after committing the crime, etc., the sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act as stated in the argument and the record, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable to the extent that it is deemed that the sentence imposed by the defendant was exceeded

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

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