The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence of one year and six months sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Each of the instant crimes committed nine times in a short period of up to 18 days, including two times of intrusion upon residence, theft, four times of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving), and one time of damage to property, etc. In light of the frequency of the instant crimes and the degree of damage, etc., the crime is not easy, but is considerably poor in light of the background and content of the crime, and the method of the crime. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to recognize that the Defendant made efforts to recover damage in the records, and there is no evidence to recognize that the Defendant made efforts to recover damage, including two times of punishment, and that the Defendant already received several times of criminal punishment, including larceny, special larceny, etc., and that each of the instant crimes committed repeated crimes during the period of punishment due to larceny, etc., it is recognized that there is a considerable lack of compliance consciousness, and that there is a high need to punish recidivism.

On the other hand, it is also recognized that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, and it appears that considerable part of the damage was restored due to the temporary return of a stolen vehicle, including a stolen vehicle, to the victims, and that the defendant seems not to contact with his family members.

Considering the above circumstances comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, environment, occupation, family relationship, circumstances leading to each of the instant crimes, and various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.