2. The judgment of the defendant is favorable to the fact that the defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case and reflected, and that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant by agreement with the victim of the larceny.

On the other hand, the defendant committed theft and unlicensed driving crimes with the same history of juvenile protective disposition and criminal punishment. In particular, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case even though he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to special larceny, etc. and completed the execution thereof, and again committed each of the crimes of this case.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, including the circumstances after the crime, and the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court of first instance, and where the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate, and it is not deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the defendant is too heavy or unab

3. As such, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.