The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant is showing the attitude that all of the instant crimes were committed, and his mistake was repented in depth.

In addition, the Defendant, prior to the institution of the instant prosecution, has reached an agreement with the victim G, and the said victim did not want to punish the Defendant.

In addition, even in the case of the crime of larceny against victim E at night, the damage was temporarily returned to the victim and the damage was restored.

In addition, the fact that the defendant had no record of being sentenced to the punishment heavier than the suspended sentence, and that the crime of this case was committed on September 25, 2015 (the second year of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for eight years) and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the damage to deadly weapons, etc.) established on September 25, 2015 and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act should be considered in relation to the relationship with the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (the second year of the suspended sentence of imprisonment) and the balance with the case that the defendant was judged together. The fact that the defendant was married with his mother who was born before his

However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant by intrusioning on the inn of this case at night, putting one of the bags owned by the victim E and cutting off, again, by intrusioning on the legal party operated by the victim G at night, with one cash of 180,000 won and one gold (10,000 won) kept in the bank at night, which was stolen, and again ruptures the said female, and ruptures the object to be stolen, and ruptures the object to be stolen after rupture into the said female, and thus, it was an attempted crime. In light of the considerable risk of the act of this case’s illegality, such as repeating the act of theft by destroying another person’

Furthermore, even though one year and one month has not passed since the crime against the victim E, the defendant does not seem to be less likely to repeat the crime by committing the same crime against the victim G again.