2. The crime of this case is deemed to have been committed three times in the middle of the Corporation and thus theft or thefting the tools, etc., in light of the method of crime, frequency of crime, etc., the crime was committed, and the damage recovery was not performed up to the trial. The Defendant is recognized as having the record of punishment for the same kind of crime. However, even though the Defendant recognized the crime of this case, he reflects his mistake in depth, the damage amount from the crime of this case is relatively little. Part of the crime of this case was committed against the attempted crime, and there was no record of criminal punishment after the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for a special larceny on or around September 199, and there was no record of criminal punishment after the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for a crime of special larceny, and other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, and conditions before and after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unfair.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, according to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, "(the point of entry into a building)" shall be changed to "(the point of entry into a building (the point of entry into a building)".