The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court against the accused (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant shows an attitude against each of the crimes of this case, and it cannot be seen that the amount of damage of victims caused by each of the crimes of this case is much different. However, the crime of this case is committed in favor of the victim after the defendant employed as an employee at the convenience store operated by the victims, and thus the nature of the crime is not less strict. The defendant was punished for larceny, etc. committed by the same law as each of the crimes of this case. The defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being aware of it during the suspended execution period. The defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims, and did not make any effort to recover damage as well as does not make any effort to recover damage. In full view of the various circumstances, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, etc., the defendant and his defense counsel's allegation of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant and his defense counsel's above assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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.