The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant are the following: (a) the defendant has led to the confession of the crime of this case; (b) the defendant's health status is not good; and (c) the beneficiary of basic livelihood security is a beneficiary

However, not only has the history of punishment several times for the defendant already been punished for the crime of larceny of the same kind, but also there is a very significant nature of the crime that is similar to the number of repeated crimes during the period of repeated crimes to be familiar with, up to now, damage recovery has not yet been made. Furthermore, the statutory punishment provided for in Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is imprisonment for life or for not less than 6 years. Furthermore, considering the favorable circumstances as seen earlier, the court below seems to have selected imprisonment with prison labor and sentenced the least sentence within the scope of the mitigated sentence, which has been mitigated. In addition, considering the above favorable circumstances, it appears that the court below determined the maximum sentence within the scope of the mitigated sentence, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., as set forth in the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission of the Supreme Court [decision of punishment] The court below's sentencing range of punishment is unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.