2. The crime of this case was committed on six occasions during the short period of time by the Defendant, and the nature of the crime is not less and less than that of the crime in light of the type of crime and the degree of damage, etc., and the Defendant has a record of receiving juvenile protective disposition for the same kind of crime, etc., which is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant, who led to the confession of the crime of this case, reflects his mistake, has not yet been able to have mental and physical maturity as a juvenile of 17 years of age, has not yet been able to have personality formed, and has reached an agreement with the victim T in the trial.

In addition to this point, comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, and circumstances after the instant crime, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unjustifiable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the term “in five times” in Part 5 of the judgment of the court below as “not knowing the market price over five times,” and the term “victim T ownership” in Part 12 of the same Article as “not knowing the market price on the part of the victim’s T ownership,” respectively, and the term “in the application column of the law” 1. In the case of detention at a workhouse: (a) deleted Defendant B of Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

.