2. The Defendant appears to have caused the instant crime while experiencing economic difficulties, and the amount of damage is not so big.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspension of execution and surveillance due to larceny, and did not recover from damage (the Defendant prepared and submitted to this court a document to the effect that damage was recovered to D and L among the victims, but the fact of recovery is not confirmed.

In addition, in the case of L, the damaged goods are only one head of the physical card, and as long as the actual damage of the card company or the business owner of the store who settled the card remains, the damage caused by the defendant's crime was recovered.

In addition to these circumstances, in full view of the Defendant’s age, environment, criminal records, sex, career, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing factors indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to deem the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

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.