The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes, and against whom the Defendant was committed, agreed with the victims during the period of the trial, and all of the damages were recovered, and some of the crimes were committed. However, the instant crime constitutes intrusion larceny committed by means of cutting the gas pipeline, etc., which is highly dangerous, each of the instant crimes was committed during the period of repeated offense, and the scope of recommending punishment according to the sentencing guidelines is from 8 months to 2 months.

1. Basic offence - Nighttime Crime: thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief

2. Concurrent Crimes - Crimes of larceny of night buildings (determination of types), crimes of larceny (determination of types), thief, 4 (Special Offense) (Special Rape) among larceny against general property 01 - Special Aggravation: ① In cases of intrusion into places, other than indoor residential space, (1) in cases of intrusion into a place, other than indoor residential space, (2) in the area of mitigation of punishment (determination of the recommended area and the scope of recommendation), imprisonment from August to June;

3. The standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than eight months from two years to three months (one year and six months from the maximum of the recommended sentences of concurrent crimes plus nine months of imprisonment with prison labor), and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, do not seem to be significantly heavy in view of the lower court’s sentencing.

3. The appeal of this case is without merit, and thus, it is in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.