The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that each sentence of the lower court (an offense No. 1 in the table of crime No. 1 in the annexed table of the lower judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and each offense in the annexed table No. 2 through 5 in the annexed table of crime as indicated in the lower judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months, and refund) is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflected against the Defendant is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant had been punished several times due to the same crime, in particular, committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime period, and committed several times by intrusion upon the victim's residence by using the key that the victims put in mail, like the previous thief punishment record, and in light of the content and frequency of the crime, the criminal liability of the defendant is not easy, and the victims did not recover from the victim's damage other than the stolen stolen goods that have been seized and returned, and the victim's efforts to recover damage could not be made at all.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances as seen above, the crime No. 1 in the table of crime No. 1 in the annexed Form No. 1 in the judgment of the court below is in the relation of larceny against the defendant for whom the judgment of December 31, 2016 became final and conclusive and the relation of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the court below’s each punishment is too unreasonable, considering the sentencing conditions in the records, including the defendant’s age, sex, criminal conduct, family relationship, environment, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure). However, the term “an aggravated punishment of repeated crimes 1.” as stated in Article 3 of the judgment below ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the