The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Although the Defendant appealed on the ground that the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, the Defendant had already been sentenced several times for the same thief crimes, and the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes without being aware of the fact that the Defendant was committed again even during the period of repeated crime, considering the method of crime, frequency of crime, and scale of damage, etc., the nature of the crime is extremely poor; the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant traffic accident is relatively high to 0.112%; it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s negligence is less severe; and it is difficult to deem that there was any change in circumstances regarding sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment was sentenced; in light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, even if considering the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victims of partial larceny, the Defendant’s health condition, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

Since the appeal by the defendant is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the “Sacheon Prison” in Part 5 of the judgment of the court below shall be corrected ex officio as “Sacheon Prison” and the “BW’s written statement” in Part 2019 High Order 2003 of the summary of the evidence shall be corrected.