2. The fact that the Defendant continued to stop the theft even though he had the same force on several occasions; in the case of the crime of Articles 2 through 5 of the judgment below, the Defendant committed another crime even during the repeated crime due to the same type of crime; in the case of the crime of special larceny and attempted special larceny, the Defendant inflicted additional damages, such as the destruction of the entrance and exit correction device, in addition to the theft of damaged goods; and the fact that the Defendant did not recover from the damage other than the returned goods at the time of arresting the Defendant is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

Notwithstanding the above unfavorable circumstances, the lower court sentenced a sentence less than the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines by taking account of the fact that the amount of damage was relatively small, etc. In light of the above unfavorable circumstances, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable because it is too too unreasonable if comprehensively takes into account the sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.