2. In addition to the fact that the defendant shows an attitude of recognizing and opposing his mistake, there seems to be somewhat insufficient sociality because of the mental symptoms of the defendant, such as susper, the mental disorder of the defendant, etc., the crime of embezzlement of deserted articles in possession is recovered at the investigation stage, and the damaged person does not want punishment against the defendant, etc., the crime is extremely poor in light of the contents, form, means, and period of intimidation, and the damaged person seems to have caused severe fear. The defendant committed another crime in the same offense against the same victim even though he had the record of receiving juvenile protective disposition. As such, the defendant did not present a clear way to solve the problem other than continuing the same offense, it is difficult to present a clear way to solve the problem, and there is no change in circumstances that the risk of recidivism is high or that there is no reason to reduce or increase the punishment of the court below in the first instance, and in addition to the fact that the damaged person does not want punishment against the defendant, the defendant's age, character, motive, means and circumstances of the crime, etc.

Defendant

The prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. The appeal 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.