2. The crime of this case committed by the Defendant by intrusion upon another person’s residence over 18 occasions, which steals goods worth a total of KRW 16,818,00,00 of the market price, and disposal of stolen goods, is a case where another person’s resident registration certificate was illegally exercised over 11 times, and is not likely to be committed in light of the method and frequency of the crime.

The Defendant had a record of having been sentenced to imprisonment several times with prison labor due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and committed the instant crime again despite the period of repeated crime of the same kind.

In addition, the Defendant did not take measures to recover damage to the victims of the instant crime.

However, there are circumstances that can be considered favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant led to the crime of this case, led to the other crime that was not at the time of the first investigation by the investigative agency, voluntarily recognized the other crime that was not at the time of the first investigation, and that the defendant did not commit such crime in the future, making efforts to return to normal social members, such as learning about the construction (theme) technology during detention in this case, and the situation that the defendant should support the mother with dementia.

In full consideration of various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, the background of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, it cannot be deemed unfair to the extent that the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is too heavy or frighted, and thus, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

3. Conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in entirety pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.