The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rejected the application for compensation filed by the applicant for compensation, and since the application for compensation cannot be filed against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the above application for compensation became final and conclusive immediately, this part is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) has been cut off by the defendant through a prison life for three years in the statement of reasons for appeal.

In addition, the court below's decision that recognized the defendant's habition of larceny was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles. However, the defendant and his defense counsel explicitly withdrawn the above argument to the effect that they dispute the misunderstanding of legal principles on the first trial date of the court of first instance, and arranged the argument that they dispute only the unfair sentencing on the ground of appeal. The ground of the above misunderstanding cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, and even after examining it ex officio, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out

It does not appear.

In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below (three years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

3. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime while committing the instant crime; (b) the Defendant led to the instant crime for living; (c) appears to have some circumstances to consider the motive thereof; (d) the Defendant took all parents at his age as a traffic accident; and (e) the Defendant was living in an unstable family environment.

On the other hand, although the defendant had a history of punishment for imprisonment several times due to the same crime, he did not abandon the habit of larceny, and again commits the crime of this case within the period of repeated crime, and the defendant did so through intrusion upon residence.