A. The sentencing of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. The judgment is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected his mistake; and (b) most of the damage inflicted on the instant crime was returned.

However, the fact that the defendant has been punished by imprisonment several times for the same crime, that the defendant committed the same kind of crime again during the period of repeated crime, that the defendant committed the same crime again during the period of repeated crime, and that it is not good to the nature of the crime by intrusion upon the victim who was diving at night to commit the theft, and that the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) of this case is a serious penalty by imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than three years. The court below sentenced the maximum punishment for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) of this case, and sentenced the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed to be adequate, too heavy or unreasonable. Therefore, each of the defendant and the prosecutor's assertion

3. In conclusion, each of the instant appeals 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.