The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. There are extenuating circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and against the Defendant, and that the amount of damage is not large.

However, even though the defendant was sentenced several times of punishment for the same kind of crime in the past and the execution of the sentence has been completed, the crime of habitual larceny in this case was committed during the period of repeated crime. The defendant committed the crime of habitual larceny in this case with the minimum statutory punishment for 3 years sentenced by the court below for 6 years by discretionary mitigation, in full view of various sentencing conditions in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the court below's punishment is too unreasonable (the defendant is not allowed to accept the argument that the defendant's mental disorder was treated through mental diagnosis such as mental appraisal about whether the cause of the crime of larceny was caused by mental disorder inherent in the defendant, if the cause was caused by mental defect. However, in light of the growth of the defendant's environment, power, frequency and motive of the crime, etc. recorded in the records of this case, the defendant's assertion that the defendant's mental disorder in this case differs from that of the defendant cannot be evaluated that of the defendant.

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.