The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (Article 1, 2, and 4 of the criminal facts in the original judgment) did not locked to steals cash within a game machine as stated in the criminal facts Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of the original judgment, and only stored with domestic locks.

Even if so, it can not be said that it started the execution of larceny.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, including K’s statement at K police, the fact that the Defendant was unable to carry out the locks of money inputs in order to steal cash in the game machine as stated in the facts constituting the crime Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of the judgment of the court below, or that it was not achieved due to the wind discovered by the police and arrested the police officer, and as such, the Defendant started the commission of larceny as long as the Defendant intentionally locked the above locks, so the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. Considering the motive and background of the instant crime, as well as the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment or imprisonment on several occasions due to the same kind of crime in the past, as well as the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime by serving imprisonment under the name of the same crime as the instant crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is deemed to be unreasonable as it is the maximum possible sentence that has been sentenced to discretionary mitigation, and 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.