All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: Imprisonment with prison labor (three years and six months) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. As to the grounds for appeal, there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflected, that some victims have recovered from damage, that the Defendant was physically handicapped and that the Defendant was in the heart color due to scopic depression, and that the health condition is not good.

However, the defendant has been sentenced several times since the 1980s for the crime of habitual larceny, and in particular, in 207 and 2011, the defendant has been sentenced to three years of imprisonment on the grounds of violation of Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. However, the defendant again committed the crime of habitual larceny, etc. one month after completion of the execution of the final punishment.

In addition, since the Defendant’s crime of this case constitutes Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the sentence imposed by the lower court was added more than six months to the lower limit of the punishment sentenced to discretionary mitigation in this case where there exist no other grounds for statutory mitigation.

In addition, the court below was a participatory trial, and the court below presented 3 years of imprisonment and 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor for 5 years of jurors in determining sentence.

In light of the fact that the court below referred to the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relation, and all elements of sentencing as shown in the oral argument are considered, the sentence of the court below is appropriate, and it is not deemed unfair because it is too heavy or uncompared compared to the degree of the defendant's liability.

The defendant and prosecutor's assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.