The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and against the mistake.

Although the Defendant was under his own effort to adapt to society after being subject to the previous punishment, the Defendant again committed the instant crime because of excessive economic difficulties, and upon receiving the punishment for the instant case and returning to society, the Defendant would no longer commit the instant crime, and continue to work and live in good faith.

The defendant intrudes into another's house, resulting in thiefing or attempting to commit theft. The number of times was 3 times in total, and one time in which the victim was living in the house, and the voice was attempted to escape immediately.

These circumstances are favorable to the sentencing of the defendant.

However, the above circumstances seems to have fully taken into account either the defendant alleged in the lower court or the lower court’s determination of punishment.

In light of such circumstances and various circumstances described in the “decision of sentence” column of the lower judgment, particularly the Defendant again committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime even though he was punished several times for committing the same method. Some of the instant crimes committed are committed when he was sentenced to a fine in the first instance court due to a separate crime of intrusion upon residence, and the appellate court continued to commit the instant crime; damage was not recovered; the victims did not receive a letter; the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, relationship with victims, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime; and the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee on the argument of the instant case, including the following: (a) the sentencing of the lower court is appropriate; and (b) the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion; and (c) the sentencing conditions in the first instance court.