The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court to the accused (four years of imprisonment) against the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant are as follows: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided; (b) the victimO received a provisional return of seized articles to recover most of the damages; and (c) the Defendant made efforts to adapt to society by providing food delivery services for about seven months after the release of the articles; and (d) the Defendant made efforts to adapt to society.

On the other hand, the Defendant committed the instant crime, together with D or independently with D, even though he/she was able to have been punished by larceny with other methods similar to the instant crime under several methods similar to the instant crime, even if he/she was unable to abandon such habits, and only seven months after he/she was released from the facility, and committed the instant crime jointly or separately with D, not agreed with the victims, and there is no motive to take into account the instant crime.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines (at least three years of imprisonment), it is difficult to deem that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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