2. The judgment committed the instant crime again despite the fact that the Defendant was under the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor due to special larceny, etc., and even before the instant crime was committed, there had already been records of juvenile protective disposition and criminal punishment several times due to the same type of larceny, and the Defendant attempted to steal property by entering the house through the victim’s open window held at a lower time, and the fact that there was an interview with the method and the nature of the instant crime is poor are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, including the fact that the defendant recognized his criminal act, the defendant still cannot be deemed to have any possibility of edification as a juvenile under 18 years of age, the thief was committed in attempted larceny, and the victim wanted to have his wife against the defendant, the defendant seems to have been living together with his mother, the defendant did not repeat the crime, and the defendant applied for a regular examination on August 2016, which was after the crime, and passed the examination on around 18, 2016, such as the fact that the defendant was working as a handphone, and the situation of the crime, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, family environment, circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the prosecutor's assertion is without merit, since it is too unreasonable for the court below's punishment to be too unscheduled and unfair.

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.