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

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there are unique areas of the first instance court concerning sentencing, and in addition, considering the ex post facto and in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing in cases 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 the discretion. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment just because it is somewhat different from the appellate court’

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). According to the aforementioned legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial, and there is no change in the number of crimes, and there is a large number of times of the crimes, and the amount of damage is at least 54 million won, and the Defendant continued to repeat the crimes despite the fact that the Defendant was discovered in the damaged company during the commission of the crimes, and prepared three times or more, even though they were found to have committed the crimes. However, the Defendant is deemed to have led to the confession and reflect of all the crimes, and the damaged company has recovered the amount of damage at the expense of KRW 9 million; the suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor was imposed on the victimized company around 1999; and all of the sentencing conditions expressed in the records and the trial process of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or is not acknowledged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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