The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of various circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant again does not commit such a crime, the punishment imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination: (a) The Defendant committed the instant crime in 100 and 2 months after the completion of the execution of punishment due to larceny, etc.; (b) the Defendant, after the sentence of the lower judgment, did not change any circumstances, such as the Defendant’s repayment of damage to the victim or agreed on it; and (c) the statutory penalty for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than 3 years and the maximum punishment for the punishment sentenced to discretionary mitigation is one and half years. (d) One year and six months, which the lower court sentenced by the Defendant without any other legal mitigation reason, constitutes the lower court’s maximum punishment, and the instant crime was committed during the period of repeated crime as seen earlier, and it is impossible to sentence the suspension of execution; and (d) other Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, etc., and the Defendant’s assertion is too unreasonable even if considering the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, 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. It is so decided as per Disposition

(However, the "Article 35" in Part 3 of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error, and it is apparent that the "proviso of Article 42" has been omitted after the "Article 35 of the Criminal Procedure Act" in Part 4 of the same paragraph, so it is corrected to delete and add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.