The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and six years) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects his depth, the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in an economically difficult situation due to operating expenses of the mother, etc., and the fact that some of the damaged items were seized and returned to the victims.

However, even though the defendant was already subject to criminal punishment several times due to the crime of habitual larceny of the same kind, he did not abandon the habit, and again committed the crime at least six months after the execution of the final sentence was completed, the frequency of the crime is large, damage is large, and most damage has not been recovered to the trial. In particular, the lower court’s punishment is close to the lower court’s lower limit within the scope of discretionary mitigation, taking into account all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as the defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, and thus, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair, since the Defendant’s argument is not reasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.