2. It is recognized that the Defendant’s economic difficulty led to each of the instant offenses, and that the value of the stolen money and valuables is not high in the case of each larceny.

However, in the case of the instant crime on June 1, 2015, the Defendant removed the correction device of home collection with the hack pipe for the purpose of the larceny crime, destroyed and damaged it, and upon the discovery of the victim, inflicted an injury on the victim with the brick, which is a dangerous object, and the nature of the crime is very serious in light of the risk, interview and interview of the method of the crime, and the result of the crime.

The Defendant did not compensate the victims for any damage at all.

A defendant may have a number of records of punishment for the same kind of crime, and he/she may also have a record of punishment for a different kind of crime.

In full view of these circumstances, the sentence of the lower court is not hot, when comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions shown in the records of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment.

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