2. Determination

A. The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, should respect the first instance sentencing judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

B. The lower court rendered a sentence by considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s acknowledgement of all of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant was subject to enlistment in active duty service; and (c) the Defendant repeatedly committed a crime due to favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant had no other force than juvenile protective disposition, etc.; and (d) the fact that the instant damage has not been recovered due to unfavorable circumstances; and (e) other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means

(c)

The grounds for each unfair sentencing alleged by the defendant and the prosecutor are shown to have been sufficiently considered in determining the punishment against the defendant, and the above sentencing conditions have changed otherwise.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

All the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.