2. The fact that the Defendant is fully aware of and against all of the instant crimes, the total market value of the stolen goods does not exceed KRW 77,880,000, and the total amount of damage was not high; the damaged goods were discovered immediately after the instant crime was committed, and the damaged goods were returned to the victim; and the Defendant was deemed to have committed the instant crime under the economic poor condition, and there were some other factors to be taken into account in the motive of the crime.

However, in light of the above circumstances favorable to the Defendant, the lower court, as seen earlier, sentenced to the lowest sentence of the applicable sentencing by taking account of the factors favorable to the Defendant, and the Defendant again committed the instant crime during the repeated crime due to larceny, etc. without being aware of the fact that the Defendant had been subject to several criminal punishment for the same larceny prior to the instant case, and without being able to do so, committed the instant crime during the repeated crime due to larceny, etc., it is not determined that the lower court is unreasonable on the ground that, in light of the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s age, family relation, criminal record, relation, character and conduct, environment, means and method of the instant crime, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., it

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