All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. As to the punishment sentenced by the first instance court (a year of imprisonment with prison labor) on the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing), the Defendant asserts that the above punishment is too unreasonable, and that the prosecutor is too unfeasible and unfair.

2. We also examine the argument that the Defendant and the prosecutor’s sentencing are unfair.

The crime of this case is an element of sentencing that is disadvantageous to the defendant, such as: (a) the victims’ cell phones was stolen by means of a “retailing” method three times; (b) the victim’s cellular phone was not good; and (c) the Defendant had already been sentenced to imprisonment or heavier punishment over several times due to the same kind of larceny, despite the fact that the Defendant committed the crime of this case three times during the period of repeated crime of the same kind of crime; and (d) the victim F and I want to be punished by the Defendant.

However, in full view of the fact that the victim E/F mobile phone was returned to the victims through seizure, etc., and the fact that the defendant is able to repent his/her mistake in depth, as well as other circumstances that are favorable to the defendant, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, health conditions, means and result of the crime, etc., the punishment sentenced by the first instance court is too heavy within the scope of the sentencing discretion, or is too uncomfortable, and thus, it is difficult to view that the punishment sentenced by the first instance court is unfair.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit. Thus, all appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.