The sentence of the court below (two years of suspended execution, probation, confiscation) is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

For about 4 months, the Defendant sent 14 intimidations to the victim’s house repeatedly, and destroyed the victim’s entrance and the passenger car screen or stolen the vehicle. In light of the Defendant’s frequency, method, and contents of the crime, the nature of each crime of this case was very poor; the victim’s residence was transferred to several times due to the instant crime; the victim’s fear and shock appears to have been considerable; and there were several criminal offenses committed against the Defendant.

However, considering the following as a whole, the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s mistake against himself/herself is against the victim; (b) the victim of the stolen vehicle has been returned; and (c) the Defendant deposited KRW 3 million for the victim; and (d) other favorable sentencing factors: (a) various sentencing data revealed in the arguments, such as the background of the instant crime; (b) the circumstances after the commission of the crime; (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct; and the environment; and (d) the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission (not less than 6 months of imprisonment): the theft [decision of type] category 2 (general larceny) [the scope of recommending sentence] basic area; (d) imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 6 months or one year and 6 months; and (e) imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 6 months (the sentencing guidelines for the crime of causing damage and damage has not been set; and (e) the lower limit of the above recommended sentence has not been justified; and (e) the Prosecutor’s assertion is not justified.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.