The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Although each of the crimes of this case was committed in favor of the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflected against the defendant, each of the crimes of this case is committed by larcenying or attempted things on a vehicle parked repeatedly over 19 times in total while the defendant returned to the apartment parking lot of several areas. In light of the method, place, frequency, etc. of the crime, the crime is considerably poor, and the defendant has a record of criminal punishment several times in the same crime, and the defendant seems to have a high risk of repeating the crime of this case without being aware of the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, in light of the fact that each of the crimes of this case was committed again without being aware of the repeated crime of this case, it seems that he did not have made any effort to recover damage, and all of the sentencing factors of the defendant in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, health conditions, family relationship, motive, method, place, frequency, period, and circumstances after the crime.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the “car” of the judgment below No. 2, No. 14, 15 is a clerical error in the “cab” of the judgment below, and thus, it is obvious that the “car” of the judgment below is a “vehicle 2, 14, and 15”. Thus, it is ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.