The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment and of confiscation) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the judgment is against the defendant, that the defendant has been growing up in the poor family environment, and that it appears that the crime of this case was committed for the purpose of preparing living expenses in an economically difficult situation is favorable to the defendant.

However, in light of the various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is unreasonable, considering the following: (a) from the beginning of April 2013 to November 20, 2013, the Defendant entered another’s residence, etc. over 12 times and habitually stolen; and (b) most damaged goods were not recovered; and (c) the victims did not agree with the victims; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character, character, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime were committed.

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