The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing was based on the method similar to that of the previous offense, which is similar to the previous offense, on the grounds that he/she was sentenced to criminal punishment for the same type of larceny and fraud, and has committed habitual larceny and fraud.

The defendant committed larceny in a day after having been released from prison in prison for the same crime even before.

In full view of the circumstances that are disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant immediately left the crime after release, the similarity of the method of crime, and the repetition of the act, etc., when considering the fact that the defendant seems to have a high criminal tendency, it is inevitable to punish the defendant, and the sentencing factors as shown in the records and arguments of this case, considering all favorable circumstances that are favorable to the defendant, among various sentencing factors, such as the fact that the defendant is recognized as all of the crimes of this case and reflect

Even if the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable, it cannot be said that it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's assertion that the sentencing of the court below is unreasonable is not accepted.

2. The appeal by the defendant is dismissed on the ground that the appeal by the defendant is without merit, and ex officio, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the second part of the judgment of the court below is to be corrected as " around June 7, 2016" as " around April 28, 2016." and it is so decided as per Disposition.