All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment (five million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

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

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is determined after the appellate court’s ex post facto nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the sentencing of the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment is within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence differs from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, the health team and the prosecutor of the first instance trial did not submit new data on sentencing, and even if the Defendant additionally submitted the normal data, there exists any particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with

It is difficult to evaluate the unfair reasons for sentencing asserted by the prosecutor and the defendant, and the reasons for the sentencing that the court below had already considered in determining the punishment, each crime described in paragraphs 1 through 4 of the crime committed in the judgment of the court below is a theft of clothes, phrases, etc., and the value of the stolen goods was not relatively significant, and the considerable part of the stolen goods was returned to the victims. The defendant agreed with the victim'sO of the crime stated in paragraph 5 of the crime in the judgment of the court below, although the defendant had been punished several times for the same crime, he/she did not repeat the crime while endeavoring to treat the wall of military register. The defendant's age, sex, criminal conduct, environment, family relationship, and the process and motive leading up to each of the crimes in this case.