2. The lower court rendered a sentence by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) the Defendant’s family members are highly likely to commit the instant crime; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of suspension of execution; (d) the Defendant has not recovered from damage; and (e) the Defendant had a number of identical criminal records including the same criminal records and twice during the period of suspension of execution; and (d) other factors of sentencing as shown in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s criminal history, age, sex behavior, environment, motive and means of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime.

The grounds for the sentencing unfair alleged by the defendant (the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, the fact that the defendant is making efforts to recover damage, the fact that the wife and three children are dependent, etc.) appear to have been sufficiently taken into account in determining the punishment against the defendant. While the defendant agreed with E as the victim for the purpose of larceny at night, even if considering these circumstances, the sentence of the court below is reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the above factors.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

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