The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal is unreasonable because the punishment (one year of imprisonment, and evidence Nos. 1 to 3) of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination: (a) there are favorable sentencing grounds, such as the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of the offense; (b) the victims of each attempted larceny and intrusion into residence do not want the punishment of the Defendant; and (c) there are family members to support the thief; (d) however, in full view of the reasons for unfavorable sentencing, such as the fact that the thief and intrusion into residence did not want the punishment of the Defendant; and (e) five times (three times of the actual sentence; and (e) one time of a fine due to the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act; and (e) the Defendant’s age, family relation, economic situation, background and motive leading to the offense; and (e) other matters concerning the sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the judgment of the court below

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

However, in the application of the law of the court below, the "Article 319 of the Criminal Act (the point of intrusion upon residence)" in the "Article 319 of the Criminal Act (the point of intrusion upon residence)" shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.