The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of KRW 7 million) imposed by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The defendant damaged the correction devices of the victim D's clan office and invadedd on the victim E's family office, and stolen the computer monitors owned by the victim E, the litigation documents related to the lawsuit between the clans and the clans in the above clans office, and documents related to the documents related to the documents and accounting documents of the above clans meeting and documents related to the debts of the above clans office. The crime is not easy, but is not easy.

Victim E maintains the intent to punish the defendant.

The Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of probation.

The Defendant has a past record of being sentenced to criminal punishment over 20 times (eight times of suspended execution of sentence, twelve times of fine). Among them, three times (two times of suspended execution of sentence, one time of fine) are criminal records of the same kind as the instant property damage crime, and two times (one time of suspended execution of sentence and one time of fine) are criminal records of the same kind as the instant property damage crime.

However, the Defendant returned most of the stolen goods.

The defendant seems to have committed each of the crimes of this case under the intention of resolving disputes among the members of the above clans, and does not seem to have committed each of the crimes of this case for personal gain of property benefits.

Many of the members of the above clan do not want to punish the defendant.

The Defendant recognized all of the crimes in this case, and shows his attitude to repent of his mistake.

In addition, even if the defendant's age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, method and consequence of the crime, etc. are added to all the sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments, there is no new circumstance to deem that the sentencing conditions of the court below against the defendant were changed at the trial, and the sentencing of the court below is reasonable discretion.