The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below (a imprisonment of one year and six months and a fine of three hundred thousand won, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that part of the damaged goods has been returned to the victim is the favorable circumstance.

On the other hand, in 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 10 months for special larceny, night intrusion larceny, larceny, and violation of road traffic law (non-licensed driving) and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years, and was sentenced to a three-year imprisonment for special robbery in 2012 during the suspended sentence.

In this regard, on December 11, 2015, the execution of the final sentence was terminated upon the expiration of the term of punishment, and the repeated crime, which was previously punished during the period of the repeated crime before and after the release, was committed by adding three times to the night night intrusion larceny and its number, theft two times, and road traffic act (unlicensed driving) of the same kind.

In addition, it is not possible to agree with the victims until the first instance, and it does not seem that specific efforts are made for the recovery of damage.

Therefore, strict sentencing of the defendant is inevitable.

The lower court, including the aforementioned circumstances, determined the punishment by fully taking into account the circumstances surrounding the sentencing of the Defendant within the scope of the sentencing guidelines, and determined the punishment within the reasonable scope.

As there is no circumstance that can be newly considered in the trial, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable because the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 329(Section 329) of the Criminal Procedure Act in the application of the law of the court below is obvious that the Defendant’s appeal is a clerical error, and thus, it is to be corrected under Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, since it is obvious that the application of the law of the court below is a clerical error.