The sentence of the court below (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unfluened and unfair.

2. The crime of this case is acknowledged that the defendant, in collaboration with Co-Defendant B of the court below, stolen 11 bicycles over 11 times, and intrudes into the corridor of the Bara in which the victim resides, in light of the method and content of the crime, and the frequency of the crime, etc., the crime of this case is very poor in light of the method and content of the crime, and the liability for the crime is not mitigated. The defendant repeatedly received juvenile protective disposition several times due to special larceny and theft, which is highly likely to repeat the crime of this case, and it does not appear that the defendant made efforts to recover damage, and that the defendant did not receive a letter from

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and commits mistake, the sum of the amount of damage, or the benefits that the Defendant acquired by the instant crime is not very significant, the Defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment, other than a fine once by the instant crime, prior to the instant crime, and the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the equity in sentencing with the accomplice for whom the judgment became final and conclusive, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., and the records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.