A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 committed each of the instant crimes in a state of mental disability with a mental disorder as a man and physical disorder. 2) The sentence of the lower judgment on unreasonable sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The form of the lower judgment by the prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of this case as to the claim of mental retardation, namely, theft of the owner of the goods displayed after the Defendant prepared for and possessed an empty bank necessary for the thief crime, and each of the crimes of this case was committed to solve the Defendant’s living conditions, each of the crimes of this case cannot be deemed as a shock and contingent crime committed in the state of being blurged with a blurging, and therefore, the Defendant’s argument of mental or physical disability is without merit.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant had several records of punishment for the same crime against the assertion of unfair sentencing, the defendant committed each of the crimes during the repeated crime period immediately after having completed the execution of punishment for the same crime, and the defendant was arrested and investigated for the crime as prescribed in Articles 6 and 7 of the judgment among each of the crimes of this case, and that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case, and the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case seven times per month and the victim's damage was not recovered most, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant. However, in light of the fact that the total amount of damage to the victims is relatively small amount of 3,907,800 won, and the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case to solve their lives, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is deemed appropriate. Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing are without merit.

3. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.