2. We also examine the argument of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor.

In light of the contents, frequency, degree of damage, etc. of each of the crimes of this case, there are unfavorable circumstances such as that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of probation due to violent crimes, did not make efforts to recover damage, and that the defendant has been punished several times for violent crimes in addition to the above suspended sentence.

On the other hand, there are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant shows the attitude against the defendant who recognized the crime, the fact that the damaged service personnel expressed the intention not to want the punishment of the defendant, the fact that if the conviction of imprisonment is finalized due to the case, the defendant must serve the term of imprisonment already suspended (one year and six months), the fact that the defendant is aged 82 years old and the health of the defendant is not good.

In full view of the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, including the above circumstances, such as character, conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence is deemed appropriate within the scope of discretion.

Therefore, both the defendant and prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is rejected.

3. The appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.