2. Although the defendant did not know about the fact that he committed the crime in this case without being aware of the fact that he was under the suspension of execution, the defendant surrendersed to the investigative agency while the defendant was under the suspension of execution, the fact that he voluntarily surrendersed to the investigation agency, the fact that the damaged items were returned to the victims, the victims stated in the investigative agency that he did not want the punishment of the defendant, and the victim D, D, D, D, D, G apartment, and K agreed with the victim. In full view of the circumstances leading up to the crime in this case, the circumstances after the crime in this case, the defendant's age, character and behavior, and environment, it is not recognized that the court below's punishment is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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

[1. However, in the application of the law of the court below, the "Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter the following reasons for sentencing)" is clear that it is a clerical error in the "Article 53, 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (with respect to the crime No. 1, 3-b, and c., the following reasons for sentencing)," and therefore, ex officio correction is made in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.