The sentence of the lower court (one year, six months of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination takes into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s mistake recognized by the Defendant is against himself/herself; (b) the damage from each of the crimes of this case was not significant; (c) the damaged goods, which are stolen, were returned; and (d) the victim S et al. agreed with the Defendant. However, the Defendant continued to commit each of the crimes against small merchants, female students, police officers, and neighbors, etc.; (d) the Defendant did not receive a letter of suspicion from the victims other than the victim S; (e) the Defendant has a majority of the same and different criminal records; and (e) the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime due to interference with business, etc.; and (e) the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case again during the period of repeated crime due to interference with business, etc.; and (e) the Defendant’s age, developments leading to the crime

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

(However) However, since it is apparent that the “victim S” was omitted between the “advered” and the “construction corporation” under Section 2, Section 19 of the judgment of the court below, it shall be corrected ex officio by adding it pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.