However, the Defendant had a record of having been punished for the same crime including imprisonment with prison labor; in particular, on September 17, 2013, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period even after the seven-year imprisonment was terminated due to the crime of larceny at night, etc. on September 17, 2013. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant, taking into account the following circumstances: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relations, the background and motive of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., were considered: (a) the Defendant attempted to steals property by impairing his residence through the window on the first floor of the apartment house; (b) the method and risk of the crime are not good; (c) the Defendant was arrested at the scene of the larceny; and (d) no agreement was reached between the victim and the victim up to the trial; and (e) the Defendant did not have any other circumstances to deem that the Defendant was taking measures to recover from damage; (d) considering various sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, background and motive of the crime and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed unfair.

2. 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.