The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too large and thus the amount of the punishment is unreasonable.

2. Even if the Defendant could not properly conduct the relevant economic activity, there is a social welfare system for the people who have difficulty in economic situation, and thus, the act of cutting down the room of another person’s residence with a hacksaw on the pretext of simply preparing living expenses, and larceny by intrusion, cannot be justified.

In addition, although the defendant is unable to cope with a prison life because his health is too good, such circumstance is only a situation in which it can be sufficiently considered at the stage of executing imprisonment, and it is not a major reason to consider in the trial that determines the sentence to be sentenced to the defendant.

In addition, since new data on sentencing have not been submitted in the appellate court, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared to those of the lower court.

Taking into account all the sentencing factors revealed in the public trial of this case, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy to the extent that it exceeds the reasonable discretion of the court.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is so dismissed as per Disposition.