2. Although the Defendant had been already punished for committing the instant crime on several occasions, he/she again committed the instant crime, even though he/she had been sentenced to punishment for the larceny, etc. of the same method similar to the instant crime. In particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime after having completed the execution of the sentence on April 1, 2012 after having been sentenced to six months of imprisonment by larceny, etc. on October 5, 201.

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime and recognized his mistake; (b) the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is relatively minor to KRW 281,300; (c) the Defendant paid compensation to the victim and agreed solely with the victim; and (d) the victim submitted a written agreement to the effect that the Defendant would not be punished against the Defendant himself/herself; (b) the Defendant appears to have an opportunity to reflect the judgment given in detention for about two months until the judgment of the lower court was rendered after the arrest on September 5, 2013; and (c) other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and pleadings, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, are considered to be unfair.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.