2. In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of each of the instant offenses; (b) there is no significant damage from each of the instant offenses; (c) the Defendant appears to be a living penalty; (d) some victims appear to be the Defendant’s wife; and (e) the crime of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is in concurrent crimes with the crime of larceny at night where judgment became final and conclusive; and (e) the crime of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act requires consideration of the case and equity in the case of concurrent crimes after the judgment is rendered pursuant to Article 37 of the Criminal Act; (b) the Defendant was under suspension of execution on four occasions after being sentenced to suspension of execution due to taking into account all of the factors indicated in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means of, and consequence of, the crime; and (c) the Defendant’s assertion that there is no reason to believe that the sentence is too unfair, by taking into account all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, and consequence of the crime.

3. According to the conclusion, Defendant’s appeal is groundless, and thus, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That in the case of the first instance trial, the Prosecutor corrected the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment to “ around 09:00 on October 10, 2013” as “ around 09:0 on October 10, 2013” under paragraph (1) of the instant facts charged.