The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized all of the instant crime and reflected, and there are circumstances in which part of the damaged goods have been seized and returned.

However, the crime of this case is a theft of cash, precious metals, etc. by intrusion upon another person's residence, etc. over 61 times for about 3 years, and the nature of the crime is not very good.

Although the total amount of damage caused by the instant crime is equivalent to KRW 310,000,000, most of the damage has not yet been recovered, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant has made a serious effort to recover from damage.

In addition, the defendant has been punished several times for the same crime, and in particular, even during the period of repeated crime of the same crime, the defendant has committed the crime of this case, and is also under the responsibility for such crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, details and details of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and pleadings do not seem to be unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion 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.

However, the lower court’s judgment on January 30, 2015 in Part 9 of the crime No. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act is obvious that it is a clerical error in “ around January 11, 2015” and thus, ex officio correction is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.