A. The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We also examine each of the judgment and prosecutor’s unfair sentencing cases.

In light of the tools used for the crime, such as taking the body of the victim into custody and taking the head of the victim from a beer disease, and the method of committing the crime, it appears that the risk was very high in light of the method of committing the crime, the injury suffered by the victim seems not to be less and more severe fears of the victim at the time. As above, the Defendant attempted to steals money from a credit cooperative after causing the injury to the victim, and the Defendant’s recovery of the damage to the victim or did not reach an agreement with the victim, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognizes all of his crime, and the record of domestic punishment is not confirmed, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

As above, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence in consideration of various favorable and unfavorable circumstances to the Defendant, and there is no special change to the extent that it is considered in sentencing in the past.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to see that the sentencing of the court below is too heavy or it is unfair because it is frighten. Therefore, each of the above arguments by the defendant and the prosecutor

3. In conclusion, since each appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, it is dismissed in entirety in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.