2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable conditions for the Defendant.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

Defamation has been committed repeatedly and the amount of damage caused by the occupational embezzlement is not much.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized his mistake as a whole, has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime, and there are circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to each of the crimes in this case.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime committed by the defendant as revealed in the arguments at the court below and the party hearing, the sentence of the court below is too heavy or unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

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