The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) against the Defendant on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant are recognized, such as the fact that the defendant made a confession of the crime of this case and reflects the wrong, that the defendant does not want to be punished by the defendant, that the victim N, I, H, G and the victim did not want to be punished, that the defendant made efforts to recover damage to the purchaser of the stolen bicycle, and that it is necessary to consider equity in the case of the defendant being tried together with night residential intrusion larceny for which the judgment has already become final and conclusive, and that there is need to consider equity in the case of being tried.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant by intrusion upon the victim's residence at night or during the night, and theft of bicycles; the frequency and period of the crime; the heavy liability for the crime in light of the frequency of the crime; the defendant's criminal law is extremely intelligent and interviewed to commit the crime; some of the crime of this case is likely to repeat the crime of this case; the defendant has a record of being punished several times due to larceny, such as receiving juvenile protective disposition from around 2007 to special larceny; the defendant has a record of being punished due to larceny; in our Criminal Procedure Act where the trial-oriented principle and direct principle are applied, the sentencing judgment has no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court; if the first sentence does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion; and if the sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decisions 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015; 2015Do3260, etc.).