It is recognized that the circumstances that the defendant reflects the defendant's mistake in depth, that the defendant committed the crime of this case for the purpose of maintaining livelihood with his body in the construction site, and that he would lead to a sincere life without committing any crime again after being released from the detention house using the qualification of the person who was acquired in the detention house.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime over 48 times in several years. As such, the period of the instant crime is long and the number of crimes and the amount of damage are not specified.

In particular, the Defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crime, and committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime.

In addition, the damage was not completely recovered.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is one of the concurrent crimes stipulated in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of larceny in the first written judgment of the court below which became final and conclusive on August 30, 2014.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, the court below’s sentencing is too unreasonable beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, as it did not change compared to the court below’s judgment in light of the following circumstances: (a) the background and method of the instant crime; (b) the degree of damage and the recovery of damage; (c) the motive for the instant crime; (d) the history of punishment; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, career, home environment, etc.; and (e)

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no reason to appeal.