The punishment sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

All of the crimes of this case are recognized by the Defendant, and the mistake is divided, and the degree of damage is deemed to have been caused to the crime in a difficult wife, and there are circumstances that can be considered in light of the circumstances, such as the degree of damage and the agreement with the victimJ.

However, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant habitually more than five times, and the nature of the crime is not good in light of the content of the crime. Although the defendant had been sentenced several times of punishment for the same kind of crime, there is a high possibility of criticism in that he again committed the larceny during the period of repeated crime, and since the damage was not recovered considerably in part, it is inevitable to sentence of punishment corresponding to the liability for the crime against the defendant.

Furthermore, the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed to have been imposed by selecting a limited term among the statutory punishment for the instant crime, imposing a aggravation of repeated crime within the scope of the term of punishment mitigated, and seems to have sufficiently taken into account the favorable circumstances as seen earlier. In addition, there is no change in circumstances that may be seen otherwise in the court below, and considering various sentencing conditions in the records, such as Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, the court below’s punishment is appropriate and unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit.