2. The fact that the Defendant agreed with the thief victim D and G, and that all of his errors are recognized and reflected, etc. are favorable circumstances.

However, the Defendant had already been sentenced two times as a crime of larceny and, in particular, committed the thief in this case without being sentenced to punishment for the same thief in spite of the period of repeated crime, and committed the thief in this case without being sentenced to punishment for the same thief in three times at night, taking into account the fact that the thief was invaded on the structure and stolen the property, and the value of the property is not considerable enough to commit the crime, there is no damage recovery or agreement with the victim K, and even if he drives a motor vehicle with no license

In addition to these circumstances, there is no special change in circumstances that could vary in the punishment from the original judgment to the trial of the party, and considering all the sentencing factors in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

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.