2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized a crime and reflects the Defendant; (b) the victim C’s damage was partially recovered; (c) the victim E’s damage was fully recovered; and (d) the Defendant voluntarily manifested the crime against the

However, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and the amount of damage is also reasonable.

The defendant has reached seven times the criminal records of the same crime, and the six times of which are sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, and it is inevitable that the defendant repeats the larceny crime within a short time without being able to improve character and behavior or self-esteem.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, etc., as shown in records and pleadings, the sentence of the lower court is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is difficult to view that it is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

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.