The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the reasons for appeal is that the original court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;

2. The judgment of the court below is against the defendant's wrong recognition of the defendant's mistake, and the fact that the BMW U.S. car and the gallon 3 mobile phones were returned to victims among the damaged goods caused by each of the crimes of this case. However, around February 2013, the defendant was released from prison to prison by a sentence of 10 months for larceny, etc., and the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case such as larceny, fraud, credit card fraud, illegal use, and unauthorized driving, etc. during the repeated offense period. The defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims, and the circumstances that the defendant actively endeavored to do so do not reach an agreement with the victims, there are many records of punishment for the same crime, and among them, there are many other records of punishment for the defendant, among them, the punishment force of the defendant can be forceed, and the sentencing of the defendant's age, character and behavior, the background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. is too inappropriate.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the judgment of the court below, on the ground that it is clear that the "each of the preceding parts of the "Article 347 (1)", "Specialized Credit Finance Business Act" and "Road Traffic Act" have been omitted from the applicable laws and the choice of punishment for the 1. criminal facts" as stated in Article 6 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, and such addition is made ex officio correction.

.