A. Error of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is erroneous in the judgment of the court below because the defendant suffered from the suffering of the defendant as a result of an improper investigation and trial against the defendant (the defendant).

(b) Each original sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and eight months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order, and 3 years of employment restriction).

2. We examine the argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in the court below, and the defendant also found the defendant guilty on the grounds of evidence in the decision of the court below. Even if the court below re-examines the evidence and the relevant legal principles, the decision of the court below is justified and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or the mistake of facts.

3. The lower court rendered a sentence by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances and the matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act regarding each of the allegation on unfair sentencing. A mitigated person: (a) having been punished several times for a similar crime; (b) having reoffending during the repeated crime period; and (c) having to reflect the Defendant’s attitude in light of the Defendant’s attitude; and (d) having already taken into account the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s health condition; and (b) having already taken into account the grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by both parties in the trial; and (c) having not been deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the lower court’

Therefore, both parties do not accept the allegation of unfair sentencing.

4. In conclusion, both appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.