The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes, against which the Defendant was committed, and partly committed an attempted crime, and the amount of damage is not 2.50,000 won.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant by intrusion on the structure and repeating the crime of theft of property within a short time, and the nature of the crime is not good.

The defendant has been punished twice for the same crime (one time of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor, one time of the suspension of the execution of the sentence), and did not reach an agreement with the victim or did not repay any damage until the court is sentenced to the punishment.

In addition, there is no change in circumstances that are conditions for sentencing in the trial compared with the original judgment.

In full view of all such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, including these circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is only within the scope of reasonable discretion and is not recognized as unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da36444, Apr. 2, 2006). (3) The phrase “a person who attempted to intrude a structure at night” under Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is obvious in the record that it is a clerical error in the “a person who attempted to larceny a structure at night”