2. The lower court determined that the Defendant committed the instant crime under consideration of the unfavorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) the Defendant recognized the entire commission of the commission of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant was living relatively faithfully and without any particular criminal history since 1999; (c) appears to have prevented each of the instant crimes; (d) the victims appears to have suffered severe damage; and (e) the victim expressed his intent not to be punished; and (c) the seized cellular phone also returned to the victim; and (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of it during the suspension period of the execution of imprisonment for the same kind of crime as the instant attempted larceny; and (e) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of it during the suspension period of the execution of imprisonment for the same crime.

In light of the sentencing conditions acknowledged by the court below, the sentencing of the court below is deemed to be within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the court below since the sentencing of the court below was too low and thus, it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the court below is unfair.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.