The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the Defendant had no previous conviction or previous conviction in excess of the fine; (b) a considerable number of people among the crimes in this case committed a redevelopment project involving houses in which the official residence was located due to redevelopment project; (c) the extent of damage is relatively small; (d) certain victims do not want punishment against the Defendant; (e) the damaged items were returned; and (e) the Defendant appears to have been involved by aiding and abetting the commission of the crime in this case.

On the other hand, the defendant intrudes on another's residence over several occasions and repeats the theft, and the risk of intrusion theft is higher than that of general larceny, and the defendant continues to commit the theft while being investigated by police due to the charge of larceny.

In addition, various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of the instant case, such as the background of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, and the sentencing criteria for special larceny (influence) established by the Sentencing Committee are from 1 to 2 months and from 8 months, even if they are sentenced to punishment for living crimes.

In full view of the above, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit since the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.