2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and divided his mistake.

Part of the damage of the instant crime was returned at the investigation stage, and the damage was partly recovered.

These points are favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant who intrudes upon his residence seven times and commits a theft or attempted theft, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are not very good.

The amount of damage caused by the instant crime was approximately KRW 28 million, but the damage was not recovered from the name to the trial except for the damaged goods partially returned.

The defendant has been habitually punished five times (including four years and two times of imprisonment) with prison labor, and the criminal act of this case of this case of this case of the same several times after release, despite the fact that the period of repeated crime is in short of the period of repeated crime.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, means and method of committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.