2. It is recognized that the circumstance is that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and against his mistake, and that the amount of damage is not so large compared to the frequency of the instant crime.

However, the crime of this case committed by the defendant after destroying the correction device, window, shower, etc. and then breaking the victims' property at a commercial store, and the case is not easy in light of the method of crime, etc., and the crime is committed for a long period of up to 1 year and 2 months, and the total frequency of crimes has not reached at least 46 times. The defendant continued to commit the crime of this case even before and after having been sentenced to criminal punishment for the crime of larceny over several times, and even before and after the crime of this case, even during the period of repeated crime, even though he was sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime, and even before and after the crime of this case, the defendant committed the crime of this case. In full view of all other circumstances, the court below’s punishment is unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

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.