The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor and six months) of the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances that the defendant led to confession of the crime of this case and agreed with the victims are favorable to the defendant.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, including the following facts: (a) there is a series of meetings including the Defendant’s punishment; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime again even during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime before the judgment; and (c) the fact that no new circumstance is presented to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial; and (d) the scope of the recommended sentence [where the sentence of the lower court, which is the lowest sentence of the sentence of the Defendant, is unreasonable because of the following factors: (a) the mitigation area of punishment (including imprisonment with labor for not less than one year and six months, but not more than two years and six months; (b) the special mitigation area; and (c) the special mitigation area: the exempted area of punishment (including advanced efforts to recover damage) or considerable part of the sentence; (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct; and (e) the motive for committing the instant crime.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

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