On the other hand, the defendant filed an appeal only against the second and third crimes in the ruling, and the first crime in the ruling did not appeal both the prosecutor and the defendant.

Therefore, since the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below is separated from the limit of the appeal period, the scope of the judgment of this court shall be limited to the part concerning the crime No. 2 and

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the punishment No. 2 and No. 3: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. The circumstances favorable to the defendant include: (a) the fact that the defendant reflects the error; (b) most damaged goods were returned; (c) the fact that the living penalty is the criminal; and (d) there are visual disorders.

On the other hand, it is inevitable that the criminal defendant has been punished four times, including the suspended execution of the same crime, re-offending during the suspended execution period for the same crime, and stolen goods by intrusion upon another person's office at night, etc.

In light of the above various circumstances, the sentencing judgment of the court below is too heavy beyond the reasonable limit of discretion when taking into account all the conditions of sentencing, such as the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, degree of damage after the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

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