2. We examine both the judgment and the prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original judgment is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable conditions for the Defendant.

The circumstances alleged by the defendant as the reason for appeal (such as recognizing the facts of crime, treating him as being addicted to narcotics, etc.) and the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor (the re-offending of a crime even after having been suspended twice due to the same criminal act) seems to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

In full view of the sentencing conditions, such as the character and conduct of the defendant, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. revealed in the arguments at the court below and the court below, including the fact that the mother of the defendant's mother desires to take the Defendant's wife and efforts to cut off the Defendant's writing-phone medication, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is too heavy or unreasonable beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit. It is