The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable;

2. The Defendant shows an attitude against the Defendant, recognizing all of the instant crimes.

The mental capacity of the defendant seems to have caused the crime.

The stolen goods were returned to the victim D, and the victim D, E,O, N, S, and V do not want to be punished by the defendant.

However, each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant by unauthorized intrusion into the house of the prior domicile where the defendant divorced, thereby damaging the property, by stealing and harming the victims, or destroying another person's property due to stolen and dangerous goods of another person, by obstructing operations such as convenience stores and store, obstructing the handling of civil petitions by police officers, and threatening a person who reported the crime of intrusion upon the above residence and destruction of property.

In light of the frequency and contents of the crime of this case, and the method of committing the crime using sculp or bricks, etc., the liability for the crime of this case is considerably heavy.

The defendant committed a similar crime even though he/she is under investigation or trial due to some of the crimes of this case, and repeatedly committed a crime against the same victim, which lacks compliance spirit.

The Defendant was still unable to receive a string from H, victim J, L, and Z.

Since 2015, the defendant has many records of criminal punishment including the enemy who has been punished several times for the same violent crime.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., as well as all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, and where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the lower court is reasonable to respect them