The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (one year and two months of imprisonment, and confiscation) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and agreed with the victim M among the victims, and the victim H and J did not want the punishment of the defendant.

However, the Defendant had been subject to multiple juvenile protective disposition and punishment due to the same criminal act, such as theft and special larceny, and in particular, the Defendant committed habitual special larceny crimes in the period of repeated crime for which the execution of punishment has not yet been completed and the period of release has not yet passed.

In light of the frequency of the instant crime (11 times in total), the method of the commission of the crime (such as cutting the vehicle into the main action and destroying the vehicle) and the fact that the victim, other than the victims, did not receive a letter from the victims, the liability for the instant crime is heavy.

In light of the above unfavorable circumstances and other conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading to the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., and the fact that it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That in the application of the judgment of the court below, it is obvious that the omission of “Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act” is a clerical error and thus, the addition is ex officio correction).