2. In light of the fact that the defendant led to the crime of larceny of this case, due to economic difficulties, etc., even though the defendant has been led to the crime of larceny of this case, each of the crimes of this case, even though each of the crimes of this case was committed repeatedly 33 times during the extended period of time, and repeated driving without license, and the nature of the crime is not very good in light of the methods, frequency, contents, etc. of the crime, total thief damage amount is not much sufficient, and substantial damage recovery has not been made up to the trial. In particular, even though the defendant had been sentenced once to the suspended sentence of larceny of this case, he repeated each of the larceny of this case (part of the crime was committed during the suspended sentence), there was a history of punishment for the crime of this case without license, and there is no reason to acknowledge that the defendant's argument that the crime of this case was committed too unreasonable after considering all of the circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, family relationship, motive, motive, circumstance, etc.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.