The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the substance of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is deemed to be too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below is that the defendant has repeatedly stolen the property of many victims even three times prior convictions of the same kind of fine, and the fact that the defendant is recognized as a habit of larceny and is punished for habitual larceny is disadvantageous to the defendant, or that there is no past record of being punished by imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment, each victim has been seized and most damaged items have been temporarily returned to the victims, the defendant's health condition and economic conditions are not good, and if the defendant is detained, the minor children's livelihood will be considered to be difficult if they are detained, and it is not unfair because the court below's punishment is too unscheduled, considering the various factors stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, and environment, as shown in the records and arguments of this case.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.