A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, three years of probation, and 480 hours of community service) is deemed to be too unfuneasible and unfair.

B. The lower judgment that did not confiscate the Defendant’s criminal proceeds is unlawful.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant had six-time juvenile protective disposition warrant due to the same crime; (b) the Defendant repeatedly committed each of the instant crimes during the period of suspension of execution without any reflective measures despite having committed the same kind of crime committed; (c) the Defendant is still a juvenile under the age of 17; (d) the Defendant has yet to agree with some victims; (e) the amount of damage has not been relatively significant; and (e) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s character and conduct, environment, the background of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence is deemed unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

B. The judgment of the court below which did not confiscate the property subject to the order of preservation for confiscation, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the above assertion by the prosecutor is without merit, in view of the fact that the profit from the crime of this case is subject to voluntary confiscation, and whether the property subject to the order of preservation for confiscation

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.

In the first instance, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment with the addition of the applicable provisions in relation to the confiscation, and this court permitted it, but it can be seen that the subject of the adjudication was changed because the addition, withdrawal, and modification of the facts charged were not made.