All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence (a year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant is the most favorable to the Defendant, and the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the degree of damage to each victim is relatively heavy; and (b) a part of theft damage is returned to the victim.

On the other hand, the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case for a period of three months. In light of the motive of the crime, diversity and repetition of the crime, etc., the quality of the crime is very poor. [2017 senior group 611] the decision of the court below (2017 senior group 611) repeatedly committed each of the remaining crimes even though he was investigated as voluntary accompanying on June 15, 2017. In particular, the crime in the decision of the court below [2017 senior group 7520] was already prosecuted for each of the remaining crimes and was issued a detention warrant and was designated as part of the crime, and it was committed 20 times or more as well as the past record of criminal punishment for the same and different crimes, and committed each of the crimes in this case after being released from prison with sentence for habitual assault (10 months of imprisonment) and repeated crime during that period, and there is no possibility of recovery from the victim's criminal records or various types of crimes, etc., as well as the possibility of repeated punishment against the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unfeasible, and thus, cannot be deemed unfair.

3. Conclusion.