2. The judgment of the court below is a favorable condition such as the confession of the crime of this case and the victim's failure to want punishment against the defendant by agreement with the victims, but the defendant can have been punished for the same kind of crime, and the crime of this case was committed without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime of the same kind of crime. In full view of all the circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relation, environment, circumstance and contents leading to the crime of this case, and circumstances leading to the sentencing conditions indicated in the records after the crime, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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

In the judgment of the court below (the court below stated that "Article 342 of the Criminal Act is a thief)" in the second sentence of "Application of the law" as stated in its holding, but the above provision is a provision concerning attempted larceny and is stated separately as "Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act (the point of attempted larceny)" in front of the above provision, and in light of the name of the crime of this case and the facts constituting the crime of this case, it is reasonable to regard "Article 342 of the Criminal Act (the point of larceny)" as a misunderstanding of Article 329 of the Criminal Act (the point of larceny). Since the above misunderstanding did not have affected the judgment of the court below, the court below is not reversed