The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. The Defendant does not have any particular criminal record except for a fine imposed once on the same crime committed at the time of the instant crime.

The defendant is recognized to commit a crime, and his depth is divided.

Some of the theft damage was recovered, and the defendant deposited 3.8 million won for the victims.

In consultation with the victim R(the list of crimes Nos. 9 in the judgment of the original court) the R does not want to be punished against the defendant.

The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime due to the difficulties in lost positions and job-seeking after having been faced with an accident that was cut off at the workplace around 2007, and the mother of the Defendant seems to have led the Defendant, and there are circumstances that could be considered favorably, such as the Defendant’s birth of the Defendant.

However, for a period of five months, the Defendant committed a crime that steals or attempted to steals property by destroying a parked vehicle, a car, or a glass of the house entrance and exit door, and used the stolen credit card of another person for entertainment expenses.

It is inevitable to sentence a criminal defendant who has committed larceny repeatedly for a short time, and it is inevitable to sentence a criminal punishment by interview or interview with the applicable law of the crime.

The crime of larceny in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is a limited term of imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than three years, and the sentence imposed by the court below is a minimum of choice by law after discretionary mitigation.

In addition, examining the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant, it is difficult to see that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

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.