The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment and three years of suspended sentence) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Each of the instant crimes, based on the reasoning of appeal, are thefted by the Defendant, who removed a ticket attached to a truck parked on several occasions during the month of May 2018, in view of the background of the crime, the method and frequency of the crime, and the details thereof. The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes repeatedly within a short period, despite the fact that the Defendant committed the same larceny, even though there was one time of suspended execution due to the same larceny, and two times of fines, and that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes repeatedly during a short period, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in light of all other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background leading up to the instant crime, the means and consequence leading up to the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unjustifiable and thus, cannot be deemed unfair in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s confession of each of the instant crimes; (b) the amount of damage to each of the instant crimes was large; and (c) certain damage was returned to the victims; (d) the Defendant duplicating with her head after the traffic accident 30 years prior to the occurrence of the instant accident; and (e) the Defendant appears to have experienced difficulties in economic activities due to the lack of good health conditions; and (e) he/she is deemed to have difficulty in walking due to the urology merger.

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.