2. Determination

A. The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, should respect the first instance sentencing judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

B. The lower court, under the circumstances that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the same repeated crime period, actively committed the instant crime, and was disadvantageous to the Defendant’s failure to recover the damage, etc., should take account of the favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s confession of each of the instant crimes, and the fact that the Defendant is scheduled to discharge his duty of military service as a social service subject, and determined a sentence by taking into account the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and taking into account various sentencing conditions as shown in

(c)

The grounds for each unfair sentencing alleged by the defendant and the prosecutor are shown to have been sufficiently considered in determining the punishment against the defendant, and the above sentencing conditions have changed otherwise.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

All the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit.

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