The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is unreasonable in light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the sentence sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, it is assumed that the Defendant had an attitude to recognize all the crimes and to reflect the mistake, and that it would not be avoided twice again.

The fact that there is a need for some consideration among the defendant's changes that the defendant's appeal that he/she was making it difficult for him/her to live in the crime of larceny due to economic lack as a basic recipient due to the fact that he/she has not been able to receive benefits from his/her resident registration even after his/her birth.

However, the crime of this case was committed from around 197 to around 1998 by committing the same crime, such as larceny or violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and was committed several times on January 24, 2003 by imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime on February 23, 2005, one year and six months, and one year and six months, and one year and six months, and one year and five months from September 19, 208, and one year and five months from the date of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime on January 17, 201, and one year and six months from the date of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime on December 20, 201, and one year and six months from the date of release to the date of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime, and one year and six months from the date of the recidivism, and one year and six months from the date of imprisonment with prison labor for the same offense on August 12, 2016.