2. That some extenuating circumstances may be recognized, such as the fact that the Defendant’s mistake was recognized in its entirety, and that the Defendant appears to have been in a difficult situation because he/she was not employed after release from the prison.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant habitually stolen or attempted to steals another person's property throughout 16 months, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime mainly by entering another person's dwelling or building, etc., the risk accompanying the instant crime is considerable and is not good.

I seem to appear.

The Defendant had been sentenced to eight times or more due to the crime of larceny, theft, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the thief). After being released from prison, the Defendant again went to the crime of this case that constitutes a repeated crime after having executed the final punishment and having been released from prison.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In light of these circumstances, in full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and motive and circumstance of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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.