2. The instant crime on the grounds of appeal pertains to the Defendant’s attempt to steals or steals the victims’ property by entering the house through a door that has not been corrected habitually over 15 times, and considering the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the period of repeated crime even though he had been sentenced five times due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and the fact that the victims were majority and the victim did not recover from damage, as alleged by the prosecutor, it is necessary to severely punish the Defendant for the effect of special prevention and the general prevention effect against the habitual larceny.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant appears to be recognized as substitute for the instant crime; (b) the fact that the instant crime was committed in a state of mental disorder caused by a mental retardation (I Q56); (c) the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is relatively large; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and all other circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing, including the following circumstances, the sentencing of the lower court, within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission, is deemed unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.