The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the punishment imposed by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the decision-making defendant recognizes all his mistake and reflects his mistake.

However, the instant case is a case where the Defendant intrudes on or intrudes the door, etc. at night at the office of a certified judicial scrivener, a licensed real estate agent's office, a restaurant, etc. on nine occasions and then steals or attempted to steals cash and deposit passbook, and withdraws cash from the stolen deposit passbook as above, which is highly likely to be subject to criticism in light of the frequency, contents, etc. of the instant crime, and the Defendant had been punished three times for the same crime in the past, and among which the instant crime was committed, includes larceny committed against a certified judicial scrivener's office, etc. similar to the instant crime. The instant crime was committed during the period of repeated offense after the Defendant was punished as night building intrusion larceny, and Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that a person who habitually commits larceny, etc. shall be punished by "a life imprisonment or imprisonment for more than three years". The lower court sentenced to statutory punishment by reducing the amount of punishment for the instant crime, and recovered from damage to the instant crime up to the trial.

In full view of all the circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, occupation and environment, family relationship, the background and result of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable, and the Defendant’s assertion is groundless, on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion.