The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was punished as habitual larcenys several times, and the risk of repeating a crime is high, and the awareness of the crime of destroying and damaging property is low, such as repeating the crime of destroying and damaging property without any particular reason, etc., the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Since the current Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has a unique area in the sentencing determination, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing determination in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even in light of the circumstances asserted by a prosecutor as an element of sentencing unfavorable to a defendant in the grounds of appeal, considering the following factors, the lower court’s punishment is deemed reasonable, and it cannot be deemed unfair on account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of a crime; (b) circumstances after the crime; and (c) circumstances after the crime; and (d) circumstances where new sentencing materials that may change the sentence of the lower court are not added in the trial, etc., such as the fact that the prosecutor’s appeal is contrary to the Defendant, and the value of stolen goods is not relatively significant; and

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.