2. The crime of this case committed by the defendant by intrusion upon another person's residence, and thus, the nature of the crime is not good.

The defendant has been punished several times for the same crime, including imprisonment with prison labor, and has committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime.

The defendant was unable to receive a letter from the victim, and the damage was not recovered.

However, the defendant committed the crime of this case, and is able to repent of wrong facts.

The value of damage caused by the theft of this case is relatively large.

The above circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines set forth in the arguments, including the circumstances after the crime, etc.

1. Scope of punishment by law: One to twenty-three years of imprisonment;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Class I crime (Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) [Determination of thief] [Determination of thief] under the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act [Type 1] there is no joint habitual or repeated larceny [special thief] [Scope of recommending area and recommending punishment] basic area, imprisonment for a year and six months to three years;

(b) An offense against which the sentencing criteria are not set;

C. The scope of recommendations based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: In full view of the crimes committed by both one and a half years of imprisonment (a concurrent crime with a crime that has not been established in the sentencing guidelines) and other factors, the sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion 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.

However, among the criminal records of the lower judgment, “one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime in the Jinwon District Court on February 16, 2004” is an erroneous entry, and “the same crime from the Jinwon District Court's Jinju branch on June 30, 2016” is the same crime.