The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The court below held that the crime of this case was committed again within three years after the completion of the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor, which was sentenced to two or more penalties for habitual larceny of the same kind, and the crime of this case was committed again within three years after the completion of the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor. The defendant, from 21 years to 32 years, does not seem to have any particular rehabilitation after release, and repeated the crime of this case within a short time without any specific rehabilitation for 15 years and eight months in total. In light of the following facts, the court below rejected some of the circumstances of the crime of this case and the whereabouts of stolen goods during the investigation process, and made statements to the effect that they are responsible for drinking or external environment, such as the fact that the victim did not suffer damage to the victim and the victim wants punishment. However, considering the fact that the defendant led to the crime of this case in open court, and that the defendant did not have any motive and condition favorable to the defendant's living environment, the court below did not have any reasons to set the sentencing guidelines for the crime of this case.

3. Conclusion.