The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (two years of suspended execution in one year and six months of imprisonment, and eight hours of probation and community service) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. The following facts are established: (a) the Defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor, a suspended sentence, or a fine on several occasions for the same type of crime; and (b) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for six months from the Changwon District Court’s Jinju Branch on August 9, 201, which became final and conclusive on August 17, 201, and was sentenced to a fine on two occasions by the court during the suspended sentence period; (c) the Defendant committed the same type of larceny, which was sentenced to a fine on two occasions by the court; and (d) the Defendant committed the same type of crime again, which is not good for committing the instant crime.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his mistake in depth; (b) the amount of damage to the instant crime was not so significant; (c) the amount of damage was returned in full; (d) the victim wants the Defendant’s wife; and (e) the Defendant again wants not to commit the larceny; (b) the Defendant’s family member also has the custody of the Defendant against the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character, character, character, intelligence and environment; (d) the motive, background, means, method, method, and consequence of the instant crime; and (d) other various sentencing conditions specified in the instant pleadings, such as the criminal defendant’s criminal history, criminal relation; and (e) the criminal sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed unreasonable as the sentence imposed by the Defendant

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in the second page of the lower judgment, the phrase “the same court on August 9, 201” in the fourth column is apparent that it is a clerical error in the Changwon District Court’s Jinju branch on August 9, 201, and thus, it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.