A. Defendant 1) As the misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles were dealt with by misunderstanding and the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, F Company was in default on a yearly basis, and F Company was operated under normal management at the time of the Defendant’s delivery of the abnormal spawn, and thus, Defendant was able and capable of paying

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below also argued the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail by examining the judgment on the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion in detail. The court below's aforementioned judgment can be justified by comparing it with the records, and there is no error of law due to misconception of facts.

B. We also examine the determination of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor.

There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because a new data on sentencing has not been submitted in the trial of the original court, and the judgment of the original court exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, considering other conditions of sentencing and the statutory penalty, etc.

There is no circumstance that it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or the judgment of the court below is assessed.

Therefore, the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is judged to be appropriate, and it is not deemed to be unfair because it is too hot or too hot.

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