The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the court below (a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for three years, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined that: (a) under favorable circumstances to the Defendant, the Defendant committed a crime that was committed before and was committed against the Defendant; (b) the Defendant appears to have been repeatedly committed without being able to adapt to society, such as the Defendant’s growth and transfer of the leisure life in a bad family environment; (c) the amount of damage to each of the instant crimes was relatively large; and (d) the victim D was returned; and (b) each of the instant crimes was committed under unfavorable circumstances; (b) the Defendant returned to the village group by taking advantage of the fact that the Defendant’s awareness of the crime of the residents in rural communities is not high; and (c) the entrance was removed from a residential area where the entrance was not corrected; and (d) disposed of after having taken account of the motive, circumstance, and method of the crime; and (d) the Defendant was not guilty in light of the motive, circumstance, and method of the crime; and (d) the Defendant was punished several times before being released from the same veterinary act due to habitual larceny; and (e) the Defendant did not have repeatedly committed each of the instant crimes during the short period.

As above, the Defendant, who favorable or unfavorable to the Defendant, was urgently arrested due to the thief crime No. 1 annexed to the judgment of the court below, and was released, committed the rest of the thief crime, and the sentence imposed by the court below falls under the lowest of the statutory penalty, and there is no special change in circumstances to assess the sentencing conditions of the court below in the appellate court, the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable.