A. The Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing has been on three years of age with disabilities of class 2 at his own expense, and has been living until now in physical condition where labor and economic activities are impossible.

It is difficult for the defendant to be economically eligible for basic living benefits.

In light of this, the sentence (7 million won of fine) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. There is no reason to consider the prosecutor’s criminal nature of the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing and the circumstances.

The Defendant has been sentenced to a fine not less than seven times to commit violent crimes, and has a habit of assault. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant committed the instant crime without going against the repeated crime even though it was a repeated crime, and thus, is highly likely to repeat the instant crime.

In light of this, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or is so unfluent that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed as it is without merit.

However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the application of the law of the original judgment ex officio shall be corrected to add "Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act" to the part of "1. Provisional Payment Order (Defendant B)".