2. The lower court, based on the following circumstances: (a) deemed that the Defendant’s mistake appears to have been divided and reflected; (b) the total amount of damage was not large; (c) certain crimes were attempted; (d) the Defendant committed several offenses under the same kind of law; and (e) the Defendant had the record of having been punished several times due to favorable circumstances, including the fact that there was considerable possibility of criticism against the Defendant during the period of repeated crime; and (e) the fact that damage was not recovered, the lower court, based on the following circumstances, sentenced to punishment by taking into account: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (b) the sentencing conditions specified in the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime.

The grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the Defendant appear to be the circumstances that the lower court had already taken into account when determining the Defendant’s punishment. The lower court’s punishment is reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there are no circumstances suggesting that the said sentencing conditions have been changed in the appellate court.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted, since the court below's punishment is too heavy.

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.