2. The judgment of the defendant is recognized that the defendant led to the confession of the crime, and his mistake is divided, the damage is minor, and the damaged goods have been returned.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the period of repeated crime due to the same crime as well as the fact that not only has been punished by a fine, suspension of execution, and punishment for the same crime, and the form and method of the instant crime, etc., the liability for the instant crime is not easy, and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, are considered, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, 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, and is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, in the judgment of the court below, the phrase “time” of 5 in the summary of evidence is a clerical error of “market price”, and the phrase “proviso of Article 42” was added to mistake, and the phrase “Article 42” in the context of the application of the statute was added to mistake, and the phrase “Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1. The phrase “Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Act of 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure” is apparent after the statutory application is reduced by mistake.