The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) in light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case’s summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant led to a confession and reflectation of a crime; (b) the amount of damage caused by the instant crime was not significant; and (c) the Defendant grown in a family environment with poor risk.

Meanwhile, the Defendant committed the instant crime at once during the period of repeated crime, which is five months after having been sentenced two times as a result of the same crime, and committed the instant crime during the short period of 18 times, and habitually during the short period of 18 times, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are not good. The Defendant intended to appropriate the amount of living expenses with the property that was stolen by labor at the young age, without having to wish to obtain the income through labor, and that the Defendant did not receive the letter from the victims, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

As above, comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing factors favorable to or unfavorable to the defendant, including the defendant's age, age, sex and environment, family relation, motive and background of the crime, method of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., as well as all the sentencing conditions as shown in the present case, including the records and changes in the previous theories, in addition, the court below appears to have sentenced the defendant two years and six months of imprisonment within the recommended range (two years and four years of imprisonment) set forth in the sentencing guidelines, taking into account the aforementioned sentencing factors, and even if there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that could reduce the sentence of the court below in the first instance court, it is acceptable that the sentence imposed by the court below is within the proper scope of punishment according to the defendant's liability, and it is not recognized that it is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal disputing unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.