The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant appears to have caused the instant crime in order to prepare living expenses, and the benefits acquired by the Defendant through the instant crime are not larger than the amount of damage.

After being released, the Defendant made efforts to adapt to society by taking the job-seeking employment in the construction site after being released, but it was difficult for the Defendant to have health reasons.

The Defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, and is against the law.

These circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

However, even before, the defendant stolen another's property and has been sentenced several times as a similar method, and the records of punishment aggravated as a same repeated crime have also reached several times.

Since 12 days have not elapsed since the completion of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor due to habitual larceny, the defendant committed the first crime of this case, and thereafter five times.

Until now, victims have not recovered from damage.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned various circumstances with regard to the Defendant, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., as well as the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable since the Defendant’s sentence imposed by discretionary mitigation is too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant's appeal is without merit.