The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable for the lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment).

2. The amount of damage caused by the instant crime is not so significant; the Defendant, in substitution of the investigative agency, the lower court, and the trial court, showed an attitude that the Defendant committed the instant crime and took the wrongs into account; in particular, there are circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as informing other accomplices who purchased stolen goods that the Defendant acquired, to the investigative agency.

However, there was no recovery of damages until the trial at the trial. On August 3, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months for special larceny, and the Defendant was released from the prison, and thus did not always have been aware of it during the period of repeated crime. The sentencing of the lower court seems to have taken into account all the above favorable circumstances, and there is no change of circumstances that may vary between the lower court and the lower court. In full view of all the circumstances indicated in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character, character and environment, occupation, occupation, power, process of the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that there is no reason to do so. However, since it is apparent clerical error that “1. J’s written statement of statement of statement of the police (the victim’s specific statement)” is omitted in the summary of the evidence of the lower judgment, it is so decided as per Disposition by adding it in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure