The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The 8-month imprisonment with prison labor declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment that the Defendant recognized all the facts charged and reflected his mistake, and that the damage caused by the theft of this case is particularly serious.

Although it is difficult to see the fact that, in light of the method of crime and the frequency of crime, etc., the punishment of the crime of this case is not less severe, the defendant agreed with the victims or did not take any measures to recover damage, the defendant has been sentenced to a fine of ten times including one fine for the same larceny, and the lower court sentenced the sentencing guidelines to the lower court, taking into account the favorable circumstances for the defendant, and there is no special change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court after the sentence of the lower court was sentenced, and there is no other reason to change the sentencing conditions as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure; Provided, That according to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “each Article 329 (Aplosion of intention, election of imprisonment), and Article 319(1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act (aplosion of dwelling, election of imprisonment),” among the judgment below, shall be amended as “Article 329 (Aplosion of intention, election of imprisonment),” and Article 319(1) (a) of the Criminal Act (aplosion of residence, and election of imprisonment) of the Criminal Procedure Act.”