All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact-finding on February 23, 2019, the Defendant did not steals 1,000,000 won or more at the market price owned by the victim I. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts among the facts charged in the instant case. (2) In so doing, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the larceny was erroneous. (3) In so doing, the lower court’s punishment (one hundred months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the testimony of the witness I of the court below as to the mistake of facts, the defendant and the victim mentioned above are dead, the victim's opphone was taken out from the body while the victim suspected of the defendant was living together with the defendant, the victim's opphone was taken out from the body while the victim's opphone was committed against the defendant, and the defendant was asked to return the opphone, but the defendant refused to demand the return of the opphone, but reported to the police, and the police officer requested the defendant to submit the opphone, and the defendant requested the opphone to submit the opphone to the police officer, the defendant can be recognized that the opphone was cut out from the victim's opphone.

Therefore, in full view of the above facts admitted, the defendant sufficiently recognized the fact that he stolen the victim's IDs, such as the charge of larceny on February 23, 2019.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. We examine both the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing.

It is recognized that the above defendant recognized the victim I's remaining crimes except the victim I's Lphone theft crime, the victim's degree of damage is not significant, the victim's intent that F and P do not want punishment against the defendant among the victims of the crime of the use of a phphone type, the degree of assault against the police officer who suffered damage to the performance of official duties is not severe, and there is no criminal conviction.

However, the nature of the case is the crime.