The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the Defendant recognized that all of the instant crimes were committed; and (b) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in an economically weak state; and (c) the Defendant said not to repeat the instant crime.

However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to four times or more as a crime of habitual larceny as stated in its holding; (b) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the last habitual larceny on December 10, 2012; and (c) was released from prison on December 10, 2012; and (d) again committed the crime of larceny in this case during the period of repeated robbery; (b) the Defendant committed the crime of quasi-Robbery; (c) the Defendant did not take any particular measures for the recovery of victims; and (d) the Defendant did not take any other measures for the recovery of victims; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the application of the sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Commission, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable compared to the degree of responsibility of the Defendant.

Therefore, the 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 since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, since Article 355 of the Criminal Code is apparent that the application of the law of the court below to "the pertinent Article of the facts of crime" is a clerical error in Article 335 of the Criminal Code, it shall be corrected in accordance with Article 25 of the Criminal Procedure Rule