The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

The gist of defendant's appeal: The punishment sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Although the Defendant received juvenile protective disposition or served several times as a sentence of larceny, he/she repeatedly commits the same crime in the short term after being released from prison, and committed the instant crime as well as the instant crime that did not go against two months after being released from prison.

The period of crime is not shorter than the number of crimes, and there are many times of crimes, and the objects have been stolen by intrusion at late night or new walls, and the correction devices have been damaged in the course of intrusion. After the crime, the method of crime is not good.

Many victims, on the other hand, have not yet been recovered from damage, and most victims have not been used.

While releasing from office without proper awareness of work or self-support, it takes place with the accomplice of the previous crime.

Such a point is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the amount of damage to the thief in this case is not a lot of letter.

After release, efforts were made to adapt to society, such as hiring a restaurant or logistics center after release.

Above all, the defendant, while growing up without sufficient interest of the young parents, has experienced from mental illness in the case of the elementary school, and has failed to adapt to the school properly, and the juvenile flag has repeated delinquency with the surrounding friendship and has left middle school.

Since the beginning of entrance into a juvenile reformatory from 14 homicide 2005 to 12 years ago, most of the 13-years have been repeatedly living in a juvenile reformatory or a prison. In the process, the Defendant was unable to properly learn compliance consciousness to be observed as a member of society, and the opportunity for necessary vocational training was not properly received.

The defendant repeats the same crime.