The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (three years of imprisonment) of the lower court is too heavy;

2. The lower court determined the lower court, based on the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant habitually committed a theft by cutting electric wires installed in the telegraph line with B, using cutting machines and cargo vehicles, etc.; (b) the series of crimes committed by the Defendant is professional and planned; (c) the frequency of the crimes; (d) the quantity of the stolen electric wires is large; and (e) considerable expenses are required for the restoration of the cut electric wires; and (c) the Defendant was punished several times in the past; (d) the Defendant has been punished several times in the past; (e) the Defendant has been sentenced to punishment by cutting and cutting electric wires; (e) the Defendant had been sentenced two times or more as a habitual larceny crime; and (e) the Defendant has committed a habitual larceny crime even after having been committed for a repeated period from the end of the execution of the final sentence; and (e) the Defendant has committed a repeated larceny crime even after having been committed for the period of time after the execution of the final sentence, and (e) the sentence against the Defendant was determined as a three-year period of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendant.

In full view of the above factors and the recommended sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court, the lower court’s punishment seems to be too minor compared to the Defendant’s criminal liability.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

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