The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unfased and unreasonable.

2. In light of the content, circumstances, etc. of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant did not seem to be less vulnerable to the nature of the crime. Moreover, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated crimes, such as larceny, violation of Road Traffic Act (dacting) and violation of Road Traffic Act (dact-free license), as well as larceny and violation of Road Traffic Act (dact-free license), and the fact that the Defendant still did not reach an agreement with the victims is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in addition to various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, including the defendant's age, sex and environment, circumstances after the crime, etc., and various sentencing conditions as well as the sentencing conditions as shown in the oral argument, the first crime (Interference with Business) of the sentencing committee's sentencing range according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court [the scope of recommended punishment] [the scope of recommended punishment] types 1 (Interference with Business in June 1 to June 6) and the basic area (Special Sentencing in June 1) [the scope of recommended punishment] (the person subject to special sentencing] of the second crime without any specific sentencing [the scope of recommended punishment] [the scope of punishment] category 1 (Larceny, such as water, etc.] of the aggravated area (one year to one year), (one year) [the person subject to special aggravated punishment] of the theft of general property [the scope of punishment for the defendant, if the punishment is set too small to the extent of imprisonment with prison labor for six months or more] of the aggravated area (the same type of repeated crime not subject to aggravated punishment].

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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.