The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the original court (two years of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of the instant case is not a large amount of damage for each habitual larceny.

The Defendant recognized all the crimes of this case and reflected the mistake.

It seems that the defendant has been in need of living expenses while living together with his wife, divorced from the country after the completion of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of transfer, leaving his residence and occupation across the country.

On the other hand, the Defendant, who habitually committed eight times at a wedding hall receipt stand, was a wedding-related person, and stolen money from his visitors.

In light of the fact that the number of crimes is high and the method of crime is intelligent, etc., the quality of crimes is not good.

The Defendant has already been sentenced to seven times of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime including the larceny under the same law, and in particular, on January 24, 2013, the former District Court sentenced the Defendant to three years of imprisonment for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the former District Court on July 18, 2015, after the execution of the sentence was completed, and committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period, not only the instant crime was committed during the repeated crime period, but also the instant crime was committed repeatedly without being aware of the fact that he/she was investigated by an investigative agency after he/she was prosecuted, and further committed the same crime of habitual larceny under the same law. The Defendant seems to lack awareness of compliance and awareness of the importance of judicial proceedings.

The defendant did not agree with the victims, or did not receive any letter from the victims.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

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