Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's punishment of the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unfasible, and the prosecutor is too unfasible and unfair.

2. The crime of this case includes the act of theft of money by the defendant by impairing a restaurant with a view to a view to the night or a new wall, which is significant in the nature of the crime in light of the Act on the Number of Crimes, the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime, and some of the crimes of this case have been committed for a repeated crime due to the same kind of crime, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant. The defendant has led to a confession and reflect against all of the crimes of this case. The substantial part of the crime of this case appears to be a theft of urban communities distributed by the defendant at the time of Sungnam, and the defendant has agreed with G, D, L, M (AF) and the mobile phone has been temporarily returned to the victim F.

In full view of the above-mentioned circumstances, including the accused’s age and happiness environment, the lower court’s punishment seems to be reasonable, and thus, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit. It is

(However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the second sentence 3 of the judgment of the court below (2014.11. "201.1." "201.11." "AC", the last sentence Q " Q " at the same end is changed to "AC", and the crime place "AG" in No. 6 No. 13 means "S", respectively.