Among them, special robbery, intrusion of buildings at night, theft, theft, and intrusion on buildings.

A. Defendant: The sentence of the lower court (a 3 years of imprisonment, and a fine of 200,000 won) is too heavy.

B. Prosecutor: The sentence of the lower court is too minor.

2. Determination

A. The part of the Defendant’s violation of the Act on Special Robbery, at night, thief, theft, and intrusion on buildings, protection and observation of specific criminal offenders, and the Electronic Devices Attachment, etc., committed the instant crime in an unstable mental state due to the mental disorder of the Cho Dong-dong disorder, and the part of the damage caused by the larceny was returned to the victims, and the circumstances where some victims and only some victims agreed to agree.

However, even though the defendant was in the period of repeated crime due to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, he cut off the electronic device attached, and committed a number of larceny crimes until he/she is arrested.

In particular, the Defendant’s act of committing the crime is very dangerous and the nature of the crime is very extremely dangerous and committed, such as: (a) the Defendant intends to prevent a female victim who returned home at a rare time from suffering with a deadly weapon prepared in advance according to the elevator in his/her residence; and (b) the Defendant intending to forcibly take money and valuables.

Therefore, it is inevitable to punish the defendant with severe punishment corresponding to his criminal liability.

Therefore, since the sentence imposed by the court below is too uncomfortable and unfair, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit, and the prosecutor's argument of sentencing is with merit.

B. As to the part on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving), the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 200,000,000,000 on account of the fact that the sentencing as indicated in its reasoning was determined by the lower court, and the circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial by the Defendant and the prosecutor are already considered in the lower court’s determination of the punishment, and the first instance judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Now, it is difficult to see the sentencing conditions in the trial.