2. Determination is an unfavorable circumstance where the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes because the Defendant did not have completed the execution of imprisonment with prison labor due to the theft crime, and all of the damages incurred by each of the instant crimes were not recovered, the Defendant committed several intrusions on the same restaurant to block the larceny, and the Defendant was punished for the larceny-related crimes, including imprisonment with prison labor for more than 10 times, and the record of the Defendant’s punishment exceeds 10 times.

On the other hand, it is advantageous to the fact that the defendant reflects the defendant's wrong, that the defendant does not want punishment against the defendant in consultation with the victim B, that the amount of damage caused by each of the crimes of this case is not much high, and that the defendant has a disability of class 2 of brain disease.

In full view of such circumstances and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the instant argument and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

[However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the "Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intrusion upon residence, the choice of imprisonment)" is "Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intrusion upon structure, the choice of imprisonment)." 3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.