2. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to the punishment against the Defendant; (b) the Defendant had been sentenced several times to the punishment due to the theft of the same veterinary method (e.g., theft by intrusion upon a sexual party or church where surveillance was neglected); (c) the Defendant again committed each of the instant crimes since the execution of the punishment was not terminated; and (d) the Defendant again committed the instant crimes; (b) under favorable circumstances, the Defendant did not relatively have any damage incurred due to each of the instant crimes; and (c) the Defendant appears to have led to each of the instant crimes due to his living conditions after release.

The sentencing of the court below is determined to be proper by fully taking into account the above various circumstances, and there is no special change in circumstances to assess the previous sentencing conditions differently in this court.

In addition, even if the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime are considered, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

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.