The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the facts-misunderstanding and the facts charged Nos. 1 and 2 of the misunderstanding of the legal principles, the thief did not commit the larceny, and as such, the vehicle door was opened in relation to the No. 3 of the facts charged, and there was no intention to larceny.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it is difficult to recognize the victims, who are the owners of goods, as abandoned goods in light of the victim D and places where goods owned by G were located, the state and value of the goods, etc. In light of the aforementioned victims’ statements and field CCTV photographs, etc., the Defendant can sufficiently recognize that each of these crimes have been committed.

In relation to Paragraph 3 of the facts charged, the Defendant, who is the owner of each vehicle specified in the facts charged, was unaware of the victim K and M at all, and the Defendant did not seem to have any special reason to open the door of each vehicle and enter the inside. In light of the fact that there is no special reason to deem, the Defendant may be recognized to have entered the above vehicle in order to color the stolen object.

Therefore, we do not accept all the Defendant’s factual mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. In light of the Defendant’s act, attitude, statement, etc. in an investigative agency and a court, it seems that the Defendant’s intellectual ability or decentralization seems to be somewhat falling, and the amount of theft damage is relatively large.

In addition, some crimes do not seem to have been committed, and they are favorable circumstances such as attempted crimes.

However, the fact that the defendant has been punished several times for the same crime (amount of punishment, suspension of execution, and punishment), and the fact that he/she does not know about during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime and commits each of the crimes of this case again is disadvantageous.

. The above.