All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the defendant is too unreasonable because of the above excessive punishment of the court below (six months of imprisonment with prison labor), while the prosecutor asserts that the above punishment is too unhued and unfair.

2. We also examine the argument of the Defendant and the prosecutor.

The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case as one of the crimes of this case and reflected it, and the fact that the theft crime of this case was committed in the attempted crime is favorable.

However, there is no change in sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant has been sentenced one time to a fine for the same crime; (b) the Defendant has been sentenced one time to a suspended sentence; and (c) the Defendant again committed the instant crime without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime which is nine months after the Defendant released; and (d) the Defendant did not seem to have been satisfing the seriousness of the crime by intrusion upon the victim’s residence; and (b) there is no change in sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment; and (c) other various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of the instant case, such as the background of the instant crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime; (d) the Defendant’s age; and (e) the Defendant’s age; and (e) the environment, etc., the sentence of the lower court is within the discretionary scope of sentencing imposed to the lower court

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument are without merit.

3. In conclusion, since all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, they are all dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.