A. Defendant: The sentence of the lower judgment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: The sentence of the lower judgment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. In light of the judgment, there are favorable grounds for sentencing, such as the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime, the fact that some damaged articles were returned, etc., and the fact that each of the crimes of this case was sentenced for the same kind of crime, the fact that all of the crimes of this case are repeated crimes of the same kind, the frequency of the crimes, and the fact that the restoration of damage was almost rare, etc., are disadvantageous

In full view of the above sentencing factors, in full view of the Defendant’s age, family relation, economic situation, background and motive leading up to the commission of the crime, and all other matters regarding the sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments in this case, the judgment of the court below is judged to be appropriate, and there is no change of circumstances to be considered additionally in the trial, and thus the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion

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