Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendant and the prosecutor) is too heavy or unreasonable that the sentence (one year and four months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too heavy.

2. The Supreme Court's decision on the unconstitutionality of Article 329 of the Criminal Act and the attempted crimes under Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which had been originally applied to the facts charged of this case, is recognized as having changed the name of the crime and the applicable provisions to habitual larceny under the Criminal Act, in which punishment is minor.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant entering a motor vehicle, the door of which is opened without permission, and thus, the case is not weak in light of the method of crime or the amount of damage, etc., and the defendant has already been subject to criminal punishment several times for the same kind of crime, and thereby, commits the crime of this case again during the repeated crime period, and there is no particular change in circumstances, such as the restoration of damage, and the court below has already reduced imprisonment for a period of two months by fully taking into account the above favorable circumstances of the defendant.

Considering the aforementioned circumstances and other circumstances acknowledged as above, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s environment, family relations, the background leading up to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, since the 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.