A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, the following are examined: (a) the defendant recognized each of the crimes in this case; (b) the defendant is against each of the crimes in this case; (c) the defendant has no record of punishment except once a fine due to the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act; (d) the damage caused by the crime in this case has not been recovered considerably from the damage caused by the crime in this case; and (e) the victim E of the crime of forging a private document or the crime of using the investigative document in this case appears to have suffered considerable pain from the F litigation and accusation; and (e) the defendant’s age, sex, family relation, and circumstances after the occurrence of the crime in this case are not recognized.

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