The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of one year and four months, and the fine of three hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. A favorable circumstance is that the Defendant’s judgment on the grounds for appeal of this case reflects the crime of this case, the Defendant’s parents have protected and directed the Defendant, and the Defendant’s wife wanted to take care of the Defendant.

In the case of larceny during the crime of this case, the defendant and the defendant committed several times or attempted theft of computers, etc. by intrusioning a late time church, and the church planned to commit the crime in light of the frequency, method and degree of damage of the crime of this case, such as the intensive theft of computers, Nowon-gu, etc. which are easy to sell, and the crime of this case is not good, and in other criminal facts, the defendant operated another person's urbine without distance or drive another person's license four times without a license, and the defendant lacks overall awareness of compliance.

It seems that criminal punishment and juvenile protective disposition have been received several times for the same kind of crime and property related crimes, the victims have not been agreed with, and no particular measures have been taken for the recovery of damage, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, family relation, motive, means, consequence, circumstances after the crime, etc. as well as the various sentencing conditions as shown in the present case's arguments and records, and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines [No. 4 types (In case of intrusion larceny) (No. 1, 2, and 3 crimes general property), mitigation area (No. 8-1, and 6 months), special mitigation person: (4) intrusion upon a place other than indoor residential space; and (2) final sentence scope by multiple criminal aggravations: August-2, and September], it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal for conclusion is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act.