A. In light of the fact that the defense counsel (unfair sentencing) committed the instant habitual night intrusion larceny, theft of stolen goods, and the crime of acquisition of stolen goods in order to raise living expenses, etc., the sentence of the lower court that sentenced the Defendant to complete the program of sexual assault treatment for a period of 1 year and 6 months and 40 hours, is too unreasonable, since the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime of larceny at night due to the discovery of the habition of the theft act; and (b) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated crime; (c) the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible.

2. On July 18, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for larceny, etc. at the Seoul Northern District Court (Seoul Northern District Court) on July 18, 2013, and was sentenced to criminal punishment for the same crime, and committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime.

In addition, damage recovery has not been properly made up to the trial.

On the other hand, each of the crimes of this case seems to have been committed to reflect the error of the defendant and to prepare living expenses.

In addition, considering the motive and background of each of the instant crimes, the circumstances before and after the instant crimes, the degree of damage, and other various matters prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are conditions for sentencing, such as the character and conduct of the Defendant and the environment, as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed appropriate, and it is not determined that the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too heavy or too heavy, and that the allegation by the defense counsel and the public prosecutor is unreasonable.

3. Conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor are 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.

However, in the application of the law of the court below, the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Code are applied.