2. The instant case pertains to a theft of property by the Defendant’s intrusion on the victim’s structure, residence, etc. through its windows, etc., which is relatively professional and repeated, and thus, the nature of the relevant crime is not weak. The fact that the Defendant did not agree with most victims is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, it appears that the defendant confessions most of the crimes of this case and reflects his mistake; the victim D does not want the punishment against the defendant; the defendant recovered damage to the victim G and I, and made efforts to recover damage by agreement with the victims, etc. When the crime of this case was committed, it seems that individual damage suffered by the victims was relatively heavy; the crime of this case was a living-type crime; the defendant was sentenced to a fine for the crime of this case until before the crime of this case was committed; there was no specific criminal history; and the defendant has to take into account equity between the crime of this case and the crime of this case which became final and conclusive at the same time with the crime of this case and the first head judgment of the crime of this case; the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case; and various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, the prosecutor's assertion that the court below suspended the execution of imprisonment to the defendant, by adding protection observation and community service order, is unreasonable.

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