2. According to the records, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) significant part of the damaged goods of the instant crime were returned to the victim as provisional return; (b) the victim did not want the punishment of the Defendant (as evidence record 2: 19 pages); (c) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant was an old age of 73 years of age and constitutes a general recipient of living benefits under the National Basic Living Security Act (the trial record 32 pages).

② However, even though the Defendant had been sentenced twice due to the nighttime intrusion larceny, etc., even though 40 years ago, the lower court appears to have sentenced to a lower sentence than that of the summary order (700,000 won), taking into account the aforementioned ① the circumstances into account, and there is no change of circumstances that may be additionally reflected in the sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced, and ③ all other circumstances constituting the condition for sentencing, including the circumstances of the instant crime, means, results, and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to be unfair because it was excessively unreasonable.

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