2. In light of the fact that the Defendant was punished for larceny several times, and that the Defendant constitutes a repeated offense, the crime of this case was committed only once, but there was no damage due to the entire return of damaged articles, the intent to faithfully live with the Defendant after being released therefrom is peeped, the Defendant’s depth is against the Defendant’s age, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s sexual behavior, cannot be said to be unfair since the sentence of the lower court is too uneasible.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.