2. The judgment of the defendant recognized and reflected each of the crimes of this case through a prison life for about four months, and the damage amount by victim of each of the crimes of this case is relatively minor and the defendant was difficult to live, and some of the circumstances that can be considered in the motive for the crime of this case are favorable to the defendant.

However, each of the crimes of this case is that the defendant stolens the cash of the victims in a vehicle which has not been habitually corrected, and thus, it does not justify a criminal act such as theft for the reason that it is difficult to maintain their livelihood, and that the defendant has been punished four times as the same crime, and that the defendant did not make a serious effort to pay damages and did not reach an agreement with the defendant and the victims until the first instance, and that the damage has not been recovered, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above-mentioned favorable circumstances and other circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the trial process, even if considering all the circumstances favorable to the defendant, it cannot be deemed unfair because the court below's punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, 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 grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.