2. The judgment of the Defendant appears to have experienced living conditions after being released from prison, resulting in the thief crime of this case.

The number of crimes is not more than two times, and the victims are not less likely to suffer damage.

The Defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, and is against the law.

These circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

However, the defendant stolen another's property and received a punishment several times by a similar method (so-called "retailing"), and the records of aggravated punishment as a same repeated crime are also several times.

On December 28, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny on one year and six months (the first sentence was also subject to aggravated punishment as a same repeated crime) and was released from prison on February 27, 2018, and six months have not passed thereafter, and the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime.

The victims did not completely recover from the damage.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned various circumstances with regard to the Defendant, as seen above, various sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the offense, means and consequence of the offense, and the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable since the Defendant’s sentence imposed by discretionary mitigation

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant's appeal is without merit.