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

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

The lower court determined a punishment against the Defendant by taking account of favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the number of crimes is high and the number of repeated crimes is crimes during the period of repeated crimes, the fact that the victims of injury want not to be punished, the fact that the victims of injury agree with the other victims, and the fact that the crime is recognized.

C. Based on the above legal principle, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the court below, and there is no other reason to view that the court below’s punishment is too heavy or too excessive, even in light of the sentencing factors revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

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