A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, the observation of protection, and the community service order 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The Defendant, without a given residence, repeatedly committed the crime of embezzlement and thiefing of the deserted items of this case nine times in total while living in a old age without a given residence.

The degree of damage caused by mobile phones, etc. is minor;

and the victims have not received statements or agreed to do so.

On the other hand, the defendant acknowledges the crime and reflects his mistake.

Most of the damaged parts were returned to the victim or seized.

A defendant has no criminal record of the same kind and has no record of punishment heavier than a fine.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, family relation, etc., the sentence of the lower court appears to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of the sentencing discretion of the court of first instance, and cannot be deemed unfair because the Defendant’s punishment is too heavy or unbrupted.

Therefore, the argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.

3. As such, 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.