2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined the Defendant’s punishment by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal (the State’s compulsory execution procedure was invalidated due to the evasion of compulsory execution of this case’s case’s case’s crime and the obligees’ legitimate exercise of rights was not achieved, and the nature of the crime was grave, and the damage of occupational breach of trust of this case’s case’s case’

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the first instance court.

When comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing, such as character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, as indicated in the arguments of the court below and the party deliberation, including the confession of each of the crimes in this case, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is too excessive or too heavy and unfair (the defendant did not submit the reasons for appeal even after being served with the notice of receipt of the records of trial on July 21, 2018, but the prosecutor appealed on its own judgment after the appeal). 3. As such, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is all without merit, and thus, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.