2. It is recognized that the Defendant committed the instant larceny and committed the instant larceny without being aware of the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced four times to imprisonment and two times the suspended sentence due to the thief, and in particular, the Defendant committed the instant larceny without being aware of the fact that he was during the suspended sentence and the repeated crime.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime; (c) found the damage that was damaged on the road, and the victim seems to have caused contingent damage; (d) the victim paid compensation for the amount exceeding the amount of damage; and (e) agreed with the victim; (b) the Defendant was in a position where the suspended sentence is to be executed by adding up the punishment that was invalidated and suspended; (c) the sentencing balance with the sentencing with the same similar case; (d) the Defendant’s age, sex behavior; (e) the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasy 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.

Provided, That the burden of litigation costs shall be governed by the proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.