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

B. The sentence imposed by the Prosecutor (four years of imprisonment) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. The sentencing conditions that are favorable to the defendant are the following: (a) the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the investigative agency; (b) the defendant himself was able to repent of his mistake in depth; (c) the deposit of a certain amount of money to compensate for damage; and (d) the fact that the defendant's mother and the criminal defendant were living far away from his family members due to economic failure; and (d)

On the other hand, the crime of this case is a case in which the defendant strongly withdraws the victim's property with a knife and causes an injury requiring six weeks' medical treatment, and its nature is not good, and the victim suffered serious physical and mental pain due to the crime of this case, and the defendant is not able to get used from the victim, etc., and is a condition for sentencing unfavorable to the defendant.

Considering the above sentencing factors, and other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

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

(However, it is obvious that the lower court’s “three years of imprisonment”, which stated the lower limit of the recommended sentence among the reasons for sentencing, is a clerical error in the sense that the lower limit of the punishment under the law against the Defendant is “three years and six months of imprisonment”, and thus, the lower court’s decision is corrected as “three years and six months of imprisonment”;