2. Each of the instant offenses is recognized as theft of the victims’ property three times, and it is recognized that the Defendant led to the confession of all the crimes and reflects the mistake, the total amount of damage is small amount, and the Defendant agreed with one of the victims at the trial.

However, there are several instances of criminal punishment for the Defendant including the same crime. Each of the crimes in this case is likely to be criticized as if the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for the same kind of crime and completed the execution of the sentence, and thus repeatedly repeated 20 days only during the period of repeated crime. In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, and all of the sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relation, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.