The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendant’s defense attorney at the summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., in the initial grounds for appeal, argued that the legal principles regarding the habituality of larceny were followed. However, the Defendant’s defense attorney at the first trial date (e.g., January 14, 2015) withdrawn the above assertion by means of the reference documents and the statement at the first trial date (i.e., January 14,

In light of the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected against the defendant, and agreed with some victims, the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant shows the attitude of recognizing the crime of this case and reflecting his mistake, the victim F and E expressed their intent not to punish the defendant, and the fact that stolen objects have been returned or are scheduled to be returned to the victims, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed on three occasions within the short period of two months, which is the period, frequency, method, etc. of the crime. In light of the period, frequency, etc. of the crime, the crime of this case was committed on 14 occasions or more before the crime of this case was committed, and the defendant had the record of criminal punishment (7 times before the crime of this case) and the crime of the same larceny among them was committed eight times more, and in particular, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years with prison labor for the crime of habitual larceny under the several Acts, such as this case, and committed the habitual larceny crime of this case at least one year and eight months after the execution of the punishment was completed.

In addition, all other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee applicable to this case (a decision of imprisonment between three years and four years (a decision of imprisonment), and a series of types 1 of habitual larceny [a person who is a special offender].