The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is divided into and against his own criminal act, and even if so, some of the damaged goods were temporarily returned to the victims.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant who repeatedly displays a vehicle with high-priced bags and damages its windows by a special veterinary method and brings them out of the country, and the nature of the crime is not good.

From around 2002, the Defendant had been subject to criminal punishment for the same crime five times, and was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for the same crime, and was released from prison for three months, and again committed the instant crime without being aware of it.

Despite the fact that many victims suffered significant damage due to the defendant's crime, the circumstances of the defendant's endeavor to recover damage can not be found.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, family relation, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of a crime, means and method of a crime, and circumstances after a crime, etc., even if considering the fact that there was a decision of unconstitutionality as to the laws applied to the Defendant prior to the commencement of a retrial, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable to the extent that it should be destroyed because it is too unreasonable (three years and six months of imprisonment).

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

2. Conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed for lack of grounds.