The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Of the orders pertaining to the return of the lower judgment, the phrase “No. 1” is deemed to read “No. 3”.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for a term of three years and fines of two hundred thousand won) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant reflects the defendant's mistake in depth, that part of the damaged goods was temporarily returned, and that long-term detention of the defendant might entail difficulties to his dependants.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was sentenced six times as a thief, and three times of which were sentenced to punishment; (b) the instant crime was committed by a criminal act identical to the instant several laws; (c) the instant crime was committed without being aware of the fact that it was committed despite being committed a repeated offense; (d) the victims did not receive any instruction from the victims; and (e) the Defendant’s age, career, occupation, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing, the sentence imposed by

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in the disposition of the court below on the return of the original judgment, " subparagraph 1" is a clerical error in subparagraph 3, and "Article 37 former part and Article 38 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act" in the application of the law are a clerical error in the "Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act". Thus, it is clear that it is a clerical error in the "Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Act", it shall be corrected in accordance