All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of probation, observation of protection, and 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (1) In light of the identity of the method of crime, frequency of the crime, and the Defendant’s previous conviction, which was found not guilty in the lower judgment of the lower court (A) on habitual larceny, the Defendant may be found to have committed each of the larceny crimes of this case with the wall of the larceny, even though the Defendant did not have habituality of the larceny.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or legal principles.

(B) On the part of the lower judgment, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the fraud of the victim C on November 201, 2014 among the facts charged in the instant case, even though it is evident that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to return the investment principle even if having received the investment payment from the victim C, and thus, acquitted the Defendant of the fraud of the firstman. In so determining, the

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) A thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding the defendant not guilty on the ground that there is no proof as to the defendant's habitual larceny among the facts charged in this case, and there is a violation of law by misunderstanding the facts alleged by the prosecutor or by misunderstanding the legal principles.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

(2) In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the fraud of the victim C on November 2014, by examining the records, the lower court is so stated.