The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant committed the larceny by intrusion upon another person’s residence within two months after being released from prison, even though he had been sentenced to imprisonment more than six times with prison labor due to the same habitual larceny crime, and committed the same kind of crime even though he had the record of being punished several times by driving a motor vehicle without a driver’s license.

In light of the fact that each crime of this case was committed during the period of repeated crime, the nature of the crime is also hot.

Until this Court, the victim was not recovered from damage.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant is committed by himself and is divided, that the amount of stolen cash is not much high, and that the defendant made efforts to have a normal occupation after release is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, sexual conduct, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. 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 groundless.