2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against the law.

All damages caused by the instant crime were recovered.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant who was in the period of repeated crime for the same crime, and it is not good that the crime is committed.

The method of crime also has been stolen by intrusion upon the residence of another person by means of the method such as cutting the gas pipeline at night or going beyond the fence, etc.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, character and conduct, motive for committing the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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.