The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., in the appellate brief dated February 24, 2020, the Defendant asserted mental and physical disability, but on the first trial date, withdrawn the claim of mental and physical disability.

Furthermore, even if examining, in light of the background of the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion of mental disability as to mental and physical disability, since the Defendant appears to have been in a state of having the ability to discern things or make decisions under pharmacologic treatment

The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and divided his mistake.

It seems that the defendant suffers from Maul and Maula, and the mental disorder of the defendant seems to have partially caused the crime.

The total amount of damage is not less than KRW 2.8 million, and a single crime was committed once, and a part of damage was returned to the victim.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

The Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case by thefting or attempted to steals money and valuables on eight occasions from a large number of victims with no knowledge, and by changing the number plate of the stolen dives, and using it unlawfully, and the nature of the crime is not good.

Many criminal offenders have been committed, and they committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime.

It is not that the defendant has recovered from all victims.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, means and method of committing a crime, circumstances after committing a crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable and unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. As the appeal by the defendant is groundless, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.