The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (seven months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination is an ordinary circumstance favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected the Defendant’s mistake late after the commission of the crime, that the amount of damage caused by the Defendant’s crime appears to be gross, and that the Defendant did not seem to play a leading role in each of the instant crimes committed jointly by multiple persons.

However, there is such favorable circumstances as above.

Even if the defendant was subject to the suspended sentence due to a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) in the past, the defendant committed the crime in question during the suspended sentence, and the defendant committed the same crime again despite being subject to the juvenile protective disposition due to the crime of larceny in 2009 and 2010, the defendant committed the crime repeatedly in this case, and the defendant has not yet recovered from damage caused by the crime, and the statutory punishment for special larceny of each of the crimes of this case is imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than ten years, and in this case, the maximum punishment of each of the crimes of this case is imprisonment with prison labor for not less than eight months (the standard for mitigation of intrusion larceny), which is set forth in the sentencing guidelines, and the sentence imposed by the court below is more imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven months.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

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