2. The judgment that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflects it, that the defendant is a second-class person with intellectual disability who has a light intellectual disability, and that the defendant's total value of stolen property is only 80,000 won, which is favorable to the defendant.

However, the defendant has already been punished several times due to the same thief crime, and has been punished six times among them.

In particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime again at 10 days after being released from prison on December 5, 2018 without being aware of the period of repeated crime despite being discharged from prison on December 5, 2018.

The Defendant committed the crime repeatedly on three occasions between the two and two occasions, and the applicable law to commit the crime is almost the same as the Defendant committed prior to the instant crime.

Even until now, the defendant did not take any particular measure to recover damage suffered by the victims, and the victims also want to punish the defendant.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In light of these circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence, conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentences presented by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee (two to four years of imprisonment), it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is excessively 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.