All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (two years of imprisonment) by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant committed a planned and repeated crime against a senior citizen vulnerable to the crime; the record of punishment for the same type of crime is several times; the Defendant committed a crime during the period of the same repeated crime under the same law; and the victim’s failure to recover is a state unfavorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized all crimes and divided them, and the fact that the amount of each damage is not much significant is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above normal relationship, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the judgment of the lower court’s sentencing does not seem to exceed the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

In addition, there is no change in circumstances that it is unreasonable to maintain the sentencing of the court below in the trial.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

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

However, there is an omission of “each” in front of “the point of entry into residence” under Article 319(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since it is apparent that it is a clerical error, it is corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

.