2. Determination is recognized that the Defendant’s mistake is divided, that some victims do not want the Defendant’s punishment, that the amount of damage is not significant, that the damage was returned to the victim, and that the crime of embezzlement of deserted articles was committed against the victim’s name, and that the larceny of the victim was committed against the attempted larceny.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant has been sentenced to a fine, suspension of execution, and punishment for the same crime, and the form, method, frequency, etc. of each of the crimes of this case, the nature of the crime is very bad and bad, and there is no change of circumstances that may otherwise be determined in the original judgment and the punishment for the first time. Considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion 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.