A. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. The Defendant, who recognized all of the instant crimes, reflects his mistake.

The defendant agreed with the victim D, M, R, and S, and the victims do not want to punish the defendant.

Since each of the crimes of this case is a concurrent crime as stated in the first head of the judgment of the court below and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the case of judgment and equity should also be considered.

However, each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant by impairing another person's residence or structure on several occasions, thereby blocking the theft crime or committing any sexual crime in the course of such larceny crime, and the nature of the crime is very bad.

The victim of a sexual crime seems to have suffered considerable mental shock due to the defendant's crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant and the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Committee, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy or unreasonable.

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

3. In conclusion, 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.