The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is unreasonable as the sentence imposed on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. The following facts are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of each of the instant crimes; (b) the instant crime is a living penalty; (c) the amount of damage is minor; and (d) the Defendant appears to have grown in the poor family environment.

However, the defendant has been sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime, and it is inevitable to severely punish the defendant in that he committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crimes of the same criminal and criminal.

In addition, there was no agreement with the victim or no damage recovery.

In full view of the above circumstances and the fact that there are no special changes in the conditions of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, and other various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records and the theory of changes, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, occupation and environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable even if considering the favorable circumstances of the Defendant as seen earlier.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's above assertion.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure that “five times of actual punishment, five times of suspended execution, and two times of suspended execution” under Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is a clerical error, and thus, the Defendant’s appeal is clearly erroneous. Therefore, “seven times of actual punishment and one time of suspended execution.”