2. The judgment is advantageous to the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, and the defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment or punishment exceeding the fine due to the same kind of crime, and the damage of each crime listed in paragraph (1) of the crime of this case as stated in the judgment of the court below was partially recovered due to the repayment of the accomplice.

However, each of the crimes of this case is an unfavorable circumstance where the defendant returned to various places across the country, and repeatedly and repeatedly committed the crime with his accomplices or attempted to steals the victims' property, by taking advantage of the stolen another's credit card, and by taking advantage of the victim's lost mobile phone, the crime is very inappropriate in light of the frequency and method of the crime, the total amount of damage amount, etc., the defendant has the record of having been sentenced to the suspension of indictment twice for the same crime, the defendant committed the crime continuously while he committed an investigation and tried to recover the damage, and there is no circumstance in which the defendant made efforts to recover the damage.

Considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., as well as the aforementioned circumstances, various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or to maintain them as they are.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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 without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.