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

B. The sentence imposed by the Prosecutor (one year of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, considering the following circumstances: (a) there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original court on the grounds that there is no submission of new sentencing data in the trial; (b) the Defendant is fully aware of and against the crime; (c) the Defendant has been punished in the same kind and method; (d) the Defendant again commits the instant crime during the period during which the instant crime was suspended; and (e) the Defendant has committed the instant crime repeatedly during the period during which the instant crime was suspended; and (e) other unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the damage was not repaid to the trial; and (e) other factors revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, the lower court cannot be deemed to have been deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by

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