2. The judgment of the Defendant reflects the Defendant’s mistake while citing all of the instant crimes, and there is room to view that the instant crime of larceny at night was committed by the Defendant when the Defendant was unable to receive wages from the victim, and there is a little reason to consider the motive of the crime in favor of the Defendant.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant was sentenced three times to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the crime of larceny or attempted larceny, etc., without any reflection of the past history of punishment, the defendant committed the crime of larceny at night in this case, and that almost all of the remainder of the articles except motor vehicles among the damaged articles of night residence theft, were not restored to the victim, and the damage to the crime of larceny was not recovered, and that there was no agreement with the victims of each crime of this case. The court below appears to have sentenced the defendant to a sentence in consideration of all the above favorable circumstances, and there was no change of circumstance that differs from the judgment of the court below, and there was no other change of circumstance that can be different from the judgment of the court below at the trial, and other various circumstances that are the conditions of the punishment as shown in the records and arguments such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, family relations, occupation, etc., it is not deemed that the

3. Accordingly, 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 groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition