A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected each of the crimes of this case, the Defendant’s health is not good due to depression, decentralization disorder, and alcohol ozone, etc. The Defendant’s mental problem appears to have been the cause of each of the crimes of this case. The fact that the vehicle, which is the object of the thief, was returned is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant has been sentenced to punishment more than ten times for a crime related to larceny or violence. In particular, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for special robbery on November 7, 2013, and the execution of the sentence was completed on September 9, 2016 and was under repeated period. However, the Defendant began to commit each of the crimes of this case since three months have not passed thereafter. Each of the crimes of this case was committed in the light of the content and method of the crime, and the nature of the crime is not easy; the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims; there was no special relationship or change of circumstances that may be newly considered in the trial; there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment; if the sentencing of the lower court does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015); and other circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, the Defendant’s environment, motive, motive, etc. before and after the crime of this case cannot be considered or circumstances.

3. As such, the appeal 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.