2. It is recognized that: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided; (b) the Defendant’s health is not good; (c) the amount of damage is relatively minor and most of the larceny crimes are attempted; and (d) the crime of this case is concurrent crimes with the crime of larceny, etc. for which judgment has become final and conclusive and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act should consider equity with the case of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, it is not good that the crime of this case is committed, and the defendant committed the crime of this case repeatedly during the period of repeated crime, even though he had a previous record of multiple times including juvenile protective disposition, and even during the period of repeated crime of the same crime, the defendant continued to commit the crime of this case, even though the trial of this case was in progress, the crime of this case was committed continuously, and no damage recovery or agreement was reached from the crime of this case until the trial of the case was in progress, and the degree of the defendant's participation, age, character and conduct and environment of the defendant, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and the conditions of various sentencing specified in the arguments of this case such as the circumstances after the crime

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 it is clear that the "same court" in the second and fifth criminal facts of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the "Yanju District Court Branch Branch", the judgment of the court below is modified according to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and it is corrected to correct the judgment below as it