2. The Defendant committed the instant crime, which committed the instant crime, is committed against the victim’s attempted theft or attempted theft, and the nature of the crime was extremely poor in light of the content and frequency of the crime, and the Defendant did not throw away the habit of the larceny even though he had been punished several times due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and committed the instant crime again during the period of repeated crime

On the other hand, the Defendant made confession of all of the instant crimes and reflects his mistake in depth, and committed the crime with respect to the victim E and H committed an attempted crime, and the victims’ partial recovery of damages due to the temporary return of seized damaged goods, and the victim N and the Justice did not want the punishment of the Defendant, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.

In addition, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of the following circumstances, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with victims, motive or circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable and goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.