The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

When galloning for seized cell phones, S2, and evidence.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, two years of social service, 160 hours of time, and victim return) is too uneased and unreasonable;

2. On May 23, 2015, the fact that the victim L, who was occupied by the owner on May 23, 2015, returned the damaged goods seized from the defendant and does not want to be punished against the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the following is disadvantageous.

The crime of this case was committed by the defendant as a taxi engineer, while having the cell phone that the defendant gets on the taxi, or searched the body of the citizen under the influence of alcohol, and thus, the crime is not committed in light of the method of crime.

The defendant has been subject to criminal punishment for several times, including three times of suspended execution for the same crime, and in particular, the defendant has been punished for the crime of embezzlement of the goods that passengers get on the taxi similar to this case.

There was no agreement between the victim J and the non-disstigious party, and there was no circumstance that the defendant has made efforts to recover from the victims.

In addition, since each possession of general property is in the relation of concurrent crimes with the crime of embezzlement of stolen property in the holding that the sentencing guidelines have not been set between 8 months and 2 years, the minimum of the recommended sentencing guidelines for larceny is considered only for the crime of larceny, since the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the background of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime of this case, the age of the defendant, character and conduct, environment, etc., and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission (at least eight months of imprisonment).

However, considering the above-mentioned favorable circumstances, a sentence lower than the sentencing guidelines is to be imposed. Considering the comprehensive consideration of the above, the lower court’s sentence is deemed too uneasible and unreasonable, and the prosecutor’s assertion is with merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is justified.