All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to the shock disorder at the time of committing the instant crime.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the defendant was given hospital treatment for one month with cryposis 2002, and thereafter was exempted from public service for the following reasons.

However, in light of the circumstances such as the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s response attitude in this court, etc., the foregoing fact alone was in a state where the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical weak argument is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s judgment of unfair sentencing is an element of sentencing favorable to the Defendant, for example, that the victims did not want the Defendant’s punishment, and that the amount of damage is a small amount of KRW 570,000.

However, considering the fact that the defendant was punished for larceny six times in the past, was committed during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime at this time, and infringed on three times in the same residential area and committed a crime, it is judged that the crime has been repeatedly committed and that there is a high concern about recidivism, so the defendant needs to be sentenced to punishment for the defendant.

When considering the above circumstances, Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc., the sentencing conditions for one year of imprisonment with prison labor set by the lower court against Defendant do not recognize that the sentencing for the Defendant is unfair because it is too heavy or unbrupt within the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.