A. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the Defendant, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of all of the sentencing conditions of the Prosecutor’s instant case, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant led to the confession and reflect of the crime of this case, and that part of the damaged goods have been temporarily returned.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc., including the fact that the Defendant repeated the crime during the period of repeated crime of the same kind, the Defendant committed the crime of the same case in a planned manner, including the Defendant’s scambling place and sharing roles in advance with accomplices, and the nature of the crime of this case was bad, and the mobile phone that was temporarily returned was not recovered from any particular damage and did not agree with the victim until the trial was in fact, the punishment determined by the court below is not deemed to

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.