The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of conditional suspension of execution of social service) is unreasonable compared to the defendant's liability.

2. The lower court, under the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, sentenced the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor, whose term of punishment is set within the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the Defendant, taking into account the following factors: (a) there was no loss of human life due to the instant crime; (b) there was an agreement with the owner of the instant structure and the household living in the same household; (c) all of the crimes are recognized and reflected; and (d) there was no power or record of the same kind of crime, which was sentenced to a fine heavier than the fine; and (d) there was no significant amount of damage from the instant crime; and (e) there was no significant

Such determination of sentencing by the court below is reasonable within the scope of reasonable discretion by taking into account all the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the argument of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime. The prosecutor’s assertion that the sentence imposed by the court below is unfair because it is too unfasible to the Defendant’s remaining households when considering the fact that the Defendant reached an additional agreement with the two households located in the past.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.