2. It is recognized that the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant’s judgment is against himself and the health status is not good.

However, the Defendant had already been sentenced to seven times of the same criminal history and, in particular, to two years of imprisonment for habitual larceny on December 29, 2009, re-offended only five months after the execution of the sentence was completed on November 5, 201, using sirens through a short period of time, stolen money and valuables several times in a rural community, and the method is similar to that of the previous crime, the fact that there is no agreement with a considerable number of victims, and all other circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence, which is the lowest of the statutory penalty, is unreasonable.

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

(However, since the date and time of the crime under paragraph (6) of the crime of the lower judgment is an obvious clerical error in the "No. 15, 2012", it shall be corrected in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.