A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two months of imprisonment with prison labor and one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the remaining crimes in the holding of the lower court) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor, each of the crimes in this case is favorable to the defendant, including: (a) examining the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing; (b) recognizing all of the charges in this case; and (c) each of the crimes in Articles 2016, 2844, 2016, and 2847, stated in the judgment of the court below, in the criminal records of the court below, should be sentenced in consideration of equity in the case of larceny at the same time as the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive on June 1, 2015; (d) on the other hand, the defendant who has many criminal records including the same criminal records and eight times, suspended sentence, and one time, committed each of the crimes in this case before one month has passed since the execution of the sentence was completed; and (d) most damaged articles were not recovered and agreed with victims; and (e) the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relation, motive and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the defendant and prosecutor's argument are not reasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.