The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided the wrongness in depth, and that the amount of damage caused by the crime of this case is not much than KRW 3.80,000,000, is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed habitually by the defendant who habitually steals another person's property at least twice after the execution of the final sentence was completed, and the crime of this case was committed habitually on three occasions during a period not exceeding two months after the execution of the final sentence was completed. Even if considering the defendant's change in the purport that the crime was committed for living to escape from a poor life that has been difficult to prepare food, the defendant's change in the purport that the crime of this case was committed habitually, the defendant needs to be punished to protect a good citizen from the defendant who repeatedly commits the same kind of crime with the same method that steals money and valuables within a vehicle, etc.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character, conduct and environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, all of the sentencing conditions shown in the instant argument, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court Sentencing Commission (two to four years of imprisonment), it is not determined that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since there is no ground for appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition.