A. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the Defendant, the sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of all the sentencing conditions of the prosecutor, the sentence of the lower court is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination of the grounds for appeal of this case is recognized as favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and repented in depth, the fact that the defendant must support the mother and wife and her children, and that the defendant's family members want to keep the defendant's wife while preventing recidivism.

However, the Defendant was sentenced to a punishment on January 11, 2007, which was the previous crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on August 11, 201, sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on August 11, 201, and committed the instant crime of the same kind during the suspended sentence period of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving under the same Act) and being well-known to anyone, and the Defendant committed the instant crime of the same kind during the suspended sentence period of nine times, apart from the previous crime, has the record of having been punished for the same crime of the same kind. In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and other various sentencing factors indicated in the records of the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is adequate and it is deemed unfair, and thus, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion on

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