A. In light of the fact that the defendant and his defense counsel recognized a mistake and reflects it, and the defendant committed the crime of this case contingently, the sentence of the court below that sentenced four months of imprisonment is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the prosecutor Defendant was punished for the same crime, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime, and the Defendant was not compensated for damage, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case was committed by the defendant in the vicinity of another victim's crepane where the victim was locked in the crepane.

After putting the key to the object box, 220,000 won in cash is taken from the victim's bat that is kept in the place.

The crime of this case was committed during the period of repeated crime after being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime on October 15, 2015 by the Seoul Eastern District Court for larceny, etc. on August 19, 2016, and the execution of the sentence was completed on August 19, 2016; on the other hand, the defendant recognized a mistake and reflects the defendant; on the other hand, the damage from the crime of this case is not relatively significant; on the other hand, taking into account the motive and background of the crime of this case, the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, the degree of damage, and other various matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are the conditions for sentencing, such as the character and conduct of the defendant as shown in the records and arguments of this case, it is determined that the punishment imposed by the court below is appropriate, and it is not determined that the punishment imposed by the defendant is too heavy or excessive, or it is unfair because it is excessively unfilled.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor are 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.