2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the fact that the Defendant both recognized and reflected the instant crime; (b) the fact that the Defendant appears to have caused the instant crime by contingency; and (c) the fact that the Defendant escaped without causing any harm, such as assault, etc. after the Defendant was dismissed from the victim.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant's intrusion upon his residence through a warehouse in order to steals the female victim's shower at night. The crime of this case was committed by the defendant, which is so long as the peace of his residence is infringed, and thus cannot be deemed to be less than the liability for the crime, the damage to the victim is not recovered, and the defendant committed the crime of this case even during the period of repeated crime, and there was a history of five times of punishment, such as a single sentence, two suspended sentence, etc. by intrusion upon another's residence by the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, the Defendant’s above assertion is dismissed on the grounds that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy, or that it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

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.