2. The judgment of the court below is difficult to view that the defendant committed the larceny against the victim I during each of the crimes of this case up to the time of the trial. It is hard to view that the defendant committed the larceny in this case and committed the crime of this case, and there was a history of being sentenced to juvenile protective disposition twice due to the same crime as the larceny in this case, and each of the crimes of this case was punished by a fine and a suspended sentence of imprisonment. The defendant committed the crimes of this case without being aware of the punishment during the suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the crime of larceny, fraud, assault, etc., and did not receive a letter from the victims due to either compensating the victims for the amount of damages or agreement with the victims. However, although the defendant did not receive a letter from the victims of each of the crimes of this case other than the larceny in this case, it seems that the defendant committed the larceny in this case, which was relatively less old than 21 years old, and the disabled in Grade 3 of intellectual disability and living conditions are extremely poor, and the circumstances and circumstances leading to the victim's occupation and behavior of each of this case.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That the lower court’s judgment’s erroneous holding of office “as of July 14, 2015, 22:00” under Article 364(2)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act is obvious.