2. We examine the judgment of the court below, that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, that the degree of damage caused by each of the crimes of this case is not much serious, that each of the crimes of this case is the theft of a structure at night, and that the special larceny against victim H is necessary to consider the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal

However, the court below seems to have set a sentence in full consideration of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and there is no change of circumstances that may differ from the judgment of the court below, such as agreement with the victims up to the trial. Each of the crimes of this case is committed repeatedly by the defendant by repeatedly intrusion into another person's business office at night, or by theft by combining with the F or J, and thus, the nature of the crime is not good. The defendant has the record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and in particular, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being aware of the fact that there is a significant possibility of criticism since he committed the crimes of this case without being aware of the fact that he was sentenced to a suspended sentence due to the same kind of crime, in full view of the age, family environment of the defendant, circumstances before and after the crime, etc., and other various sentencing conditions that are shown in the records and arguments

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.