A. The determination of the Defendant’s punishment (unfair in sentencing) (6 months) is inappropriate.

B. The determination of the amount of punishment by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined that the sentence was selected within the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set out in the annexed sentencing guidelines (from June to September).

The punishment was determined by considering the reflection of the accused, the criminal records, and the quality of the crime.

The court below did not err in selecting and applying sentencing elements, and there is no change in sentencing conditions in the appellate court.

No respect for the determination of the lower judgment cannot be respected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). This court’s review again of the obstruction of business, obstruction of performance of official duties, obstruction of the sentencing criteria for the crime of causing property damage, and other sentencing factors, and thus, does not seem unfair because the determination of the lower judgment exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion or it is unreasonable.

3. The appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is without merit.

All of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.