A. The punishment of the judgment of the first instance court (six months of imprisonment) against the defendant is too unreasonable.

(b) The sentence of the first instance judgment against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions, including: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, process and consequence of the crime, and consequence; and (b) the sentencing of the court of the first instance is too heavy or unreasonable because of the lack of any new sentencing data in the trial; and (c) the circumstances favorable to the Defendant specifically indicated in the judgment of the first instance (e.g., commission of a crime and reflectness; (d) the Defendant’s desire to take a preference against some victims); and (d) the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant (e.g., crime history, repeated crime period; and agreement with some victims) are maintained. In full view of all other circumstances, the sentencing of the court of the first instance cannot be deemed unfair because the sentencing of the court goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and is too heavy

Therefore, each of the defendant and prosecutor's arguments on unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

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