A. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The lower court: (a) comprehensively considered that the amount of damage is relatively minor; (b) the Defendant was aware of the crimes committed in the course of the investigation; (c) took account of the favorable circumstances that the Defendant, despite having received juvenile protective disposition several times of having reached an agreement with some victims, has not yet become an adult and has reached the crime of larceny repeatedly; and (d) considered the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) given that all sentencing conditions in the pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, were considered to have been committed, the lower court sentenced the lowest sentence within the scope of the applicable sentencing under the law, which has sentenced to discretionary mitigation.

The grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the Defendant and the prosecutor seem to be the circumstances in which the lower court has already taken full account of the Defendant’s punishment.

The lower court determined the punishment by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant with respect to the instant sentencing, and there are no circumstances to deem that the said sentencing conditions have changed in the appellate court.

Therefore, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion cannot be accepted, since the lower court’s punishment is heavy or light.

3. As such, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.