2. The circumstances are favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes, and recognized that some of the damaged items were returned to the victims, and that the value of each of the damaged items is relatively high, and that some of the victims (victimO and T) do not want the Defendant’s punishment.

However, the Defendant was convicted of having been sentenced several times of punishment due to the crime of larceny of the same kind. On January 21, 2016, the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the same repeated crime period in which one year was sentenced to imprisonment due to intrusion upon residence at night, theft, etc. on October 5, 2016, and was released on October 5, 2016. The frequency of each of the crimes of this case reaches 18 times together with the number of victims, and is relatively high number of victims, most of the victims (excluding the victims mentioned earlier) did not receive tolerance from most of the victims, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, circumstances leading to the crime, etc. compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it cannot be deemed reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.