2. The judgment of the court below did not have a stable workplace after release and there are circumstances that may be considered in the motive for the crime of this case because the defendant did not have a stable workplace after release, and there were other circumstances that led to the crime of this case, such as the defendant's age, character, environment, occupation, power, circumstance, means and result of the crime of this case, and circumstances that were shown in the records and arguments, such as the criminal investigation agency, the court below, and the court of original trial, and the court of original trial, showed the attitude that the defendant had committed the crime of this case in substitution, but did not recover damages up to the trial. The defendant did not have a way to larceny, and the defendant did not have a way to commit the crime of this case, without being aware of the above favorable circumstances during the suspended sentence period. The sentence of the court below seems to have taken into account all the above favorable circumstances, and the decision of the court below was sentenced to the maximum punishment within the applicable sentence after discretionary mitigation, and it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is proper and unreasonable.

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 without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.