2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the Defendant led to the confession of and reflects on the instant crime, the fact that the vehicle damaged by habitual theft of this case appears to have been recovered, and the amount of damage caused by the fraud of this case is relatively little.

B. However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant habitually committed each of the thiefs in this case over several occasions; (b) the Defendant escaped without taking any necessary measures, such as rescue, etc. even though having committed a traffic accident while driving a stolen vehicle without a driver’s license; (c) the damage caused by the traffic accident and the fraudulent act was not recovered; (d) the Defendant has been sentenced several times to the crime of larceny and the violation of the Road Traffic Act; and (e) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the pleadings of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, even if considering the favorable circumstances of the Defendant

C. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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