The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the law and frequency of the instant crime, the lower court determined the lower limit of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines by taking account of the circumstances favorable to the following: (a) the Defendant, prior to the instant crime, was not good in terms of the nature of the crime; (b) was punished seven times as punishment for the larceny crime; (c) was committed in some cases even during the period of repeated crimes; and (d) was not prepared by the victim; and (c) was not recovered from the victim on September 3, 2019. However, the lower limit of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines was set for the Defendant, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the fact that the Defendant’s mistake is against and appears to have reached

There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original court because new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial, and even considering the various reasons revealed in the trial process, the sentencing of the original court is too inappropriate to be exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[4] Article 5-4(5)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is reasonable in light of the following: (a) deeming the special provisions of Article 35(2) of the Criminal Act as the special provisions of Article 35(2) pursuant to the proviso of Article 8 of the Criminal Act in light of the establishment of the phrase of aggravated punishment, the prevention of double evaluation, and the necessity of interpretation consistent with the Constitution; and (b) deeming that the aggravation of repeated crimes under Article 35(2) of the Criminal Act is not separate. Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is that the provision of Article 35(2) of the Criminal Act is as follows.