A. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (crimes 500,000 won: 50,000 won: 10,000 won: 20,000 won: 10,000 won: 20,000 higher and 550: 10,000 won; 20,000 won: 3

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The judgment appears to have led to the confession of the crime of this case and against his mistake; the defendant agreed with the victim of the larceny of this case; some victims of the larceny of this case did not want the punishment of the defendant; there seems to be room to expect improvement of character and behavior as the age of the defendant; or there was a fact that the defendant had already been subject to juvenile protective disposition or suspension of indictment due to the crime of larceny and traffic-related crimes, etc.; and the defendant again committed the crime of this case because he had been suspended execution of imprisonment with prison labor due to the case including special larceny and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) and did not go beyond the suspended execution period; since most of the damage of this case appears to have not been recovered, it is an unfavorable circumstance against the defendant; since there were no other circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., and there were no reasonable limits of sentencing discretion in the court below's decision to 201.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.