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

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

2. The fact that the amount of damage to the instant crime was not small, however, that the Defendant did not agree with the victim or take particular measures to recover the damage, and rather, the victim was punished against the Defendant.

On the other hand, this case’s crime is a favorable situation where the defendant properly recognizes and reflects his mistake. The crime of this case’s crime takes into account equity in the case of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the previous conviction stated in the first head of the original judgment of the court of the court below. The defendant is deemed to have been working for a new life, such as receiving college education, by taking his mistake into account similar cases, including the crime of this case’s crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

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