The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The facts charged in the case of the 2015 senior 3475 senior 2015 senior 2015 senior 3475 senior thief was prosecuted for habitual larceny. The prosecutor later changed the indictment to the indictment to be the larceny of habitual night intrusion, and the defendant was unable to exercise his right of defense sufficiently.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the record of the instant case’s determination on the argument of procedural illegality, following the Defendant’s 10 times of larceny was prosecuted for habitual larceny, the charge of larceny continued to be added, and the indictment was revised. On September 2, 2015, the Defendant’s thief was added to the larceny at night, and Article 330 of the Criminal Act was also added to the applicable law, and the Defendant and the first instance court’s defense counsel stated that there was no objection to the amendment of the indictment, and all of the modified charges are recognized.

After that, the prosecutor changed the name of the crime from habitual larceny to habitual larceny, and the court of first instance allowed the change of the indictment, and the defendant and the defense counsel of the first instance also stated that there is no objection.

In light of the contents of the facts charged and the process of the trial, etc., it is not deemed that there was a substantial disadvantage or impediment to the defendant's exercise of his/her right of defense, and thus, the defendant

B. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the defendant after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.

In addition, considering the facts alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair, even if all of the circumstances alleged by the Defendant are considered.

Therefore, the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing is not accepted.

3. If so, it is the conclusion, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act.