The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the punishment (one year and eight months of imprisonment and confiscation) declared by the court below against the defendant is too unfasible.

2. Although the judgment of the court below had the record of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment and imprisonment with labor two times for the same crime as the crime of this case, the defendant committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime period beginning with the lapse of one year and two months after the completion of the execution of imprisonment with labor for the same kind of crime, and committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime period from the end of one year and two months, and there were circumstances where the victims did not receive a letter of request from victims due to their reimbursement or agreement with the victims. However, the defendant reflects in depth as he recognized all of the mistakes, and seems to be in poor living conditions, and considering the motive and background leading up to the crime of this case, the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, occupation and family relation, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.

[1] However, in the summary of the evidence of the court below, it is clear that the criminal records, investigation reports (the previous records and the investigation reports), each judgment, and the personal identification and confinement status "1.1.1. The criminal records and the investigation report, the investigation report (former records and the attachment of the judgment), the personal identification and confinement status," the application of the law, "1.1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act" in Article 48 (1) 1 and 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, are each erroneous statements, and therefore, the correction is made ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.