All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing recognized all of the instant crimes, and two victims of the seven crimes do not want the punishment of Defendant A.

However, each of the crimes of this case was committed by the Defendant after acquiring stolens at least seven times within a short period of time, and it is not good for the nature of the crime. The total amount of damages to the victims of the crime from 3,828,000 won, which was attached to the judgment of the court below, was not restored. The Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case within a period of suspension of execution, as well as committed some crimes, even before the judgment of suspension of execution is rendered.

In addition, there is no change in the circumstances about sentencing conditions in the trial compared with the original judgment.

In full view of all such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, circumstances surrounding the crime, and circumstances after the crime, including these circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is only within the scope of reasonable discretion and is not recognized as unfair due to the lack of reasonable discretion.

B. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is only within the scope of reasonable discretion, and is not recognized to have reached the degree of undueness, considering the following circumstances: (a) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, as it did not submit any new data on sentencing at the trial on the prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing; and (b) considering the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, motive, and consequence of the commission of the crime, etc. as shown in the records and arguments, the lower court’

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant A and the prosecutor is with merit.