A. Defendant 1) Influence of misunderstanding of facts: The Defendant was pushed down with flaps of the victim D with bather, and was tightly damaged by hand, but there was no more violence.

B) Intimidation: The Defendant merely told library employees, etc. that they should be subject to their parents, including D, and there was no threat that they would kill their parents, especially the victims E.). 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one month of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) of the lower court is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant argued that the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is identical to the above argument of mistake of facts, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail by stating the decision in detail. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified, and the defendant's assertion of

B. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court unless the sentencing exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined a sentence by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all of the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or it is difficult to view that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by putting too heavy.

The defendant and the prosecutor's unreasonable sentencing.