A. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and two months of imprisonment) against the Defendant (unfair imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s above sentence against the Defendant against the prosecutor (unfair form of punishment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court on the grounds of appeal, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The sentencing conditions asserted by a prosecutor are all the circumstances that were presented at the lower court and considered.

On the other hand, the defendant did not agree with the victim in the trial.

The judgment below

There is no new circumstance to consider the sentencing after the sentence, and taking into account all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too minor or unreasonable.

Therefore, both parties' assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal of this case by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.