2. The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime due to the lack of economic circumstances at the time, and the fact that his mistake is divided and reflected in substitution, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant had a record of having been punished by imprisonment, etc. for the same crime, and committed the instant crime repeatedly during the repeated period despite having been punished by imprisonment on or around 2012. The instant crime was committed repeatedly during the period of the repeated crime. The Defendant abused the Defendant’s personal card, etc. inside the vehicle in the process of delivering the delivery to the delivery company delivery company Delivery C, etc., which is the victim and stolen 115 cash cards, etc. for a short period by impairing the delivery vehicle, and then withdrawing or transferring reasonable money using the stolen cash card. Although the victims suffered from the instant crime had not been recovered last, the Defendant was unable to accept some of the cash cards during the investigation process of the instant case and the initial trial process of the lower court, and it is difficult to view the Defendant’s allegation that the Defendant did not interfere with the instant crime, and that the Defendant’s age, environment, personality, and behavior, etc. were too inappropriate in light of all the following circumstances.

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.