The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, while undergoing an influent growth process, began to commit the crime of larceny, etc., and recently, the Defendant was absent from a computer game and did not engage in normal economic activities and repeated such crimes.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected, while receiving vocational education during the prison period, is going to work in good faith after being released from prison and live there.

Such circumstances can be considered in favor of the defendant.

However, even though the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment several times due to the crime of larceny, etc., he/she committed the larceny again under the same law during the period of repeated crime.

In addition, the defendant's intrusion upon the victim's residence and committing the crime of this case is not very good to commit the crime.

The number of victims is large, and the amount of damage was considerable, the defendant did not make efforts to recover the damage to the victims (at the time the defendant is arrested, four half and one balth have been seized when the defendant was arrested). The defendant did not receive a letter of suspicion from the victims.

Such circumstances are considered disadvantageous to the defendant.

In light of the aforementioned various conditions, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, and circumstances after the instant crime, as well as the various conditions of sentencing prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment and the sentencing of the lower court does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In so doing, it is not recognized that the Defendant’s sentence imposed by the lower court is too too unreasonable.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3. The appeal by the defendant is justified.