A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (six months of imprisonment) by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is a circumstance unfavorable to the defendant that the defendant committed the bodily injury on the part of the victim with the over-road that is dangerous to the defendant, and that the fiff is not good and the attitude of the act is very dangerous, and that the defendant has the power to be punished for the crime of violence.

On the other hand, the fact that there was an agreement with the victim and the victim wanted to leave the defendant's wife is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the judgment of the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

In addition, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in circumstances that it is unreasonable to maintain the sentencing of the lower court in the

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

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