The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Although there are no extenuating circumstances such as the fact that all of the crimes of this case were led to the confessions of the defendant and the depth of the crimes of this case and the fact that the defendant was living far away from his wife, and that some of the victims appear to have caused the crime of this case, which was not punished for the defendant. Of Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes applied to the facts of this case, the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality on the part concerning Article 329 of the Criminal Act and the attempted crimes of this case was changed to habitual larceny under the Criminal Act where the criminal name and applicable provisions are light, each crime of this case was committed more than 14 times a year, and since the business owner, etc. of the store habitually intruded the store, and thus, it is very serious that the crime of this case was committed, and that the victim was not subject to punishment for the same kind of crime of this case, and that the victim was not subject to punishment for the same kind of crime of this case.

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.