2. It is recognized that the Defendant’s recognition of the instant crime is against the victim E or G, the receipt of a letter from the victim E or G for larceny, the age is 21 years, the Defendant appears to have grown in an influent family environment, and the Defendant’s direct return of the stolen Lao to the victim E.

However, it is also recognized that the defendant has been subject to criminal punishment twice including punishment for the same crime, and has a record of being subject to juvenile protection disposition 12 times, in particular, the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime and suspended execution due to the same crime, and the rest of larceny victim I and victims of fraud have not agreed.

In addition, in full view of the various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the character, conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the court below after the judgment of the court below, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure; however, it is corrected that "the defendant's appeal is added to "Article 70 (1) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Credit Financial Business (the point of improper use of credit card, the choice of imprisonment)" in Article 70 (1) 8 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.