2. Determination is recognized as a favorable sentencing factor, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the crime and appeared to have committed the instant crime, the fact that some of the damage was temporarily returned, etc., due to the economic difficulties after the release.

However, even though the Defendant had already been sentenced several times due to larceny, it is also recognized that the Defendant committed larceny more than 20 times for a period of about three months as the same veterinary method as that of the previous two months after the execution of the punishment was completed.

Considering the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, the motive and background leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the first instance court’s sentence which sentenced the lowest sentence to the Defendant, who is disqualified from the suspension of execution, is deemed appropriate, and is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the 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 ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, Article 331 of the "Article 342 of the "Article 342 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure" shall be amended to "W," the summary of the evidence of the first instance court as "W," the fourth Qu as "W," the third 11th ," and the following correction.