2. The fact that the defendant was sentenced to punishment for larceny several times, and the defendant was released from prison for two years due to larceny in 2016 and was in office for a repeated crime, is disadvantageous to the defendant, even though he was in office for a repeated crime.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognizes and reflects the crime of this case, the amount of damage did not reach an agreement with the victims, and the fact that it is not good to health, such as receiving blood speculation from the victim due to the new post of the horses, is favorable.

In addition, in full view of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, as well as various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment is deemed too unjustifiable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.