2. Although the amount of damage is relatively minor, the crime of this case was stolen by entering the house beyond the victim's gathering, and the method and risk of the crime appears to be high. The defendant committed the crime of this case even though he had been punished several times through the same larceny crimes, there is doubt as to whether he committed the crime of this case, and it seems that his act is genuinely against the victim, and it seems that the damage was restored or that he did not receive a letter from the victim, and in full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, environment, sex behavior, background and motive of the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., it is difficult to see that the sentencing of the court below is excessive and unfair, and therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 35 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the “Article 35” listed in the third behavior in the column for application of the law among the judgment below is obvious that it is a clerical error, and thus, it is deleted under Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, and it is omitted between the third behavior in the column for application of the law and the fourth behavior in Article 35 of the Criminal Act on the ground that the “Article 35 of the Aggravation of Cumulative Offense of 1.1 is added.”