2. The judgment of the defendant has several records of punishment for the same crime; the defendant committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime period; the defendant stolens the victims' property by the so-called "day" method at night; however, although the defendant recognizes all the crime of this case, and is able to lead a sincere life in the future in support of his spouse and children; the defendant does not want punishment for the defendant; the victims do not want punishment for the defendant; and other various sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, criminal records, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered appropriate and it is not recognized that the defendant's punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal of this case is without merit. It

However, in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the third page 4 of the decision of the court below is "1." Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act before being amended by Act No. 12575 of May 14, 2014;

1. To correct Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act by adding "Article 334 (1) of the Provisional Payment Order";

.