2. The judgment below also considered the following facts: (a) the Defendant had a number of penalties for violent crimes and larceny crimes due to the unfavorable circumstances against the Defendant; (b) the Defendant repeatedly committed the instant crime even though he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor; and (c) the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims; and (d) the Defendant was sentenced to punishment for the Defendant by taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant was able to prevent contingent larceny crimes due to the favorable circumstances against the Defendant; and (b) the fact that the Defendant returned to his own problems and

In addition to these circumstances, when comprehensively considering various conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, including Defendant’s age, sex, and environment, the sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within a reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account all the conditions of sentencing, and there is no special change in circumstances that may be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial. Thus, it is not recognized that the sentence of the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable because it is too heavy.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

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