2. The crime of this case committed by the Defendant committed a theft of property by entering the vehicle inside the vehicle by destroying the correction device of the parked vehicle with a return to the entire country over 40 times, which is disadvantageous to the Defendant, and in light of the type of the crime, etc., the criminal liability is grave, the victim did not agree with the victim, and the damage has not been recovered.

However, there are extenuating circumstances such as: (a) the Defendant divided the instant crime in depth for a period of two years and hardened to not repeat the crime; (b) there is no record of punishment for the same crime; and (c) actively cooperated in the investigation; (b) the purport of the Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality on the part concerning Article 329 of the Criminal Act among Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; and (c) other sentencing conditions such as Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (d) all the sentencing conditions such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too

3. The appeal filed by the prosecutor with the conclusion is groundless, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.