2. As to the grounds for appeal, the Defendant has the same record of having been sentenced to six times (three times of punishment, two times of suspension of execution, and one time of fine) and juvenile protective disposition on a one-time basis due to the crime of larceny and intrusion upon residence on May 24, 2012, and repeatedly committed the instant crime during the period of suspension of execution, which must be considered as being more familiar with anyone who has been sentenced to a two-year suspension of execution, and must be considered as having committed the instant crime during the period of suspension of execution, and is not agreed with the victims up to the trial. In light of the above, the Defendant should be punished strictly.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant has recognized all of the instant offenses, and is in depth divided; (b) the amount of damage from larceny is minor; (c) the amount of damage from larceny is recovered in cash; (d) the Defendant faithfully performed probation and community service prior to the instant offenses; (e) the Defendant was the pretend to support his mother and two children; (b) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, criminal record relationship; (c) the Defendant’s background leading up to the instant offense; (d) the background leading up to the instant offense; (e) means and consequence; and (e) the circumstances before and after the instant offense; and (e) the various sentencing conditions specified in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the circumstances before and after the instant offense, the lower court’s punishment

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.