The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the defendant's attempt to commit the instant crime and reflects the fact that the defendant's health is not good; and (b) the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined the sentence by taking into account the following circumstances as revealed in the lower judgment’s “reasons for sentencing”.

The sentencing conditions shown in the records, such as the age, occupation, sex, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the crime shall be determined as ordered by considering the following circumstances:

The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of suspension of execution even though he/she was sentenced to a punishment of two-year imprisonment with prison labor for larceny on up to eight occasions due to the same crime, and on August 23, 2015, even though he/she was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence due to larceny (in this case, the period of suspended execution has elapsed as of the date of the sentence of this judgment), and continued to commit the larceny even after he/she was prosecuted on May 4, 2017 (the Defendant complained of that Defendant was suffering from severe humiliation, etc. around June 20, 2017, around July 19, 2017, around August 23, 2017).

At the trial date of the first, second, and third instances, the defendant was absent on the trial date, and around the above time, the defendant continued to commit the larceny, and the defendant was present on the fourth trial date around October 31, 2017 and made a request to appoint a national defense counsel, which was later made on November 3, 2017, and thereafter made a request to appoint a national defense counsel. The total amount of the damage is not significant; the victim does not want to be punished; the fact that some victims do not want to be punished; the fact that the state of health is not good; the fact that the court below determined an appropriate punishment by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant and the unfavorable circumstances against the defendant; the fact that there is no special change in circumstances that could change the punishment of the court below on several occasions after the issuance of the judgment of the court below. The crime of this case was committed several times by the defendant who has the same kind of criminal records.