The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances that the Defendant, while making a confession of all of the instant crimes, actively cooperates in the investigation process, and shows an attitude to reflect his mistake, and that some of the instant crimes were committed in attempted crimes, and that the agreement was made smoothly between three victims and some of the instant crimes are favorable to the Defendant.

However, on the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant who intruded on another's residence over 11 times within a short period of 4 months and stolen or attempted to steals property, and its nature is very poor. The defendant had been punished several times prior to the crime of this case, such as night-time larceny, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes), fraud, fabrication of private documents, and uttering of a falsified document. In particular, on November 27, 2008, the former District Court sentenced three years to imprisonment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) in the Jeonju District on September 11, 201, and committed each crime of this case without care, while the defendant was released from protective custody, the defendant did not have any agreement between the victims of the larceny and the victims of the larceny.

In light of the aforementioned various circumstances, there is no change in the circumstances that would be different from the original judgment’s punishment. In addition, considering the following conditions, such as Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive or circumstance of crime, motive or circumstance of crime, means and consequence of crime, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable, and thus, it is not deemed that the Defendant’s sentence is too unreasonable.