2. The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes again during the period of probation, even though the Defendant and the Prosecutor had a number of identical records including four times of punishment, and committed each of the instant crimes, in violation of the previous matters to be observed in the judgment of probation (not having access to the electronic amusement room for adults, which is installed with the head of the horse or the speculative amusement machine), etc., taking into account the following factors into account: (a) the Defendant’s other crime is against the Defendant; (b) the damage incurred by each of the instant crimes is relatively minor; (c) the implementation of the community service order according to the previous judgment of probation was completed and the meeting of the observation office was faithfully performed; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and environment; and (e) the process and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered as the factors favorable to the Defendant. In full view of all circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is adequate, and it cannot be deemed that it is too excessive or unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, all appeals filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, and all appeals are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the judgment of the court below is clear that “ May 15, 2016” of the criminal facts No. 2(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act is a clerical error of “ May 14, 2016,” and thus, correction is to be made.