2. The judgment of the Defendant is recognized as a favorable sentencing factor, such as the fact that all of his criminal acts are divided, and some nights, residence theft and quasi-Robbery are committed, and most of the victims agree with each other, and the amount of damage is relatively minor.

However, the Defendant, even before being sentenced to punishment for violation of the Cannabis Control Act and the Narcotics Control Act, has been committed several times, and is also recognized as disadvantageous factors for sentencing, such as the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence), theft, and intrusion upon residence, and release from prison after being sentenced to punishment, and repeating the same kind of crime during the period of repeated offense.

In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, criminal records, motive and background leading to the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime, and various circumstances revealed in pleadings, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence sentenced by the first instance court is deemed appropriate, and it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.