2. The judgment is based on the fact that the defendant had a career of punishment more than 10 times due to the same and different types of crimes, including imprisonment for the acquisition of stolen goods, but the defendant's intention appears to have a satisfy awareness, since it is difficult to deem the defendant to have reached each of the crimes of this case with a conclusive intention to acquire stolen goods from the beginning, the defendant's intention seems to have reached a satisfying awareness, the fact that the F, who seized the stolen motor vehicle and entered into the lease contract, operates the stolen motor vehicle, and other sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, etc., are not recognized as unfair since the sentence of the court below is too unfyed. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is obvious that the prosecutor's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.