2. The judgment of the Defendant committed the larceny of this case at the time when one month has not yet passed since the execution of the immediately preceding sentence was completed even though the Defendant had been subject to criminal punishment or juvenile protective disposition for the same kind of crime, and the Act on the Number of Crimes of this case also seems to have the same record as that of the same kind of crime, and thus, seems to have never shown that he did

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized his own crime and is in profoundly against the defendant, and that habitual larceny is applied as a decision of unconstitutionality on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes which was first applied to the defendant, which led to the reduction of the statutory punishment, that the defendant agreed with the victim D smoothly, and that a significant portion of the damaged articles of this case were returned to the victims, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, the circumstances leading up to each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, it does not seem that the lower court’s punishment on the Defendant is too heavy or unreasonable to the extent that it ought to be destroyed because it is too heavy.

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument are without merit.

3. 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.