The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the court below applied the part of Article 329 of the Criminal Act among Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes declared as unconstitutional while applying habitual larceny under the Criminal Act to the thief crime of larceny of the defendant, and that the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for four years is in violation of the principle of legality, the principle of excessive prohibition, the principle of equality, and the punishment is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, by misrepresenting a police officer, public official, or employee of the Eup/Myeon office, stolen or fraudulently acquired another’s property.

The responsibility of the defendant is very heavy in view of the fact that the above crime of the defendant is committed repeatedly against the elderly who shall receive social respect and consideration, and the amount of damage is a considerable amount.

Moreover, even before committing the instant crime, the Defendant had been punished several times due to the same type of crime, but it has not yet been released from the military court, and thus, committed the instant crime.

In full view of all the circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, as well as such various circumstances, the sentence imposed on the Defendant is deemed to be an appropriate punishment corresponding to its responsibility.

Furthermore, considering all the circumstances alleged by the Defendant, the lower court’s sentencing of a prison term of four-year cannot be deemed as contrary to the principle of no punishment without the law, the principle of excessive prohibition, and the principle of equality.

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.