A. The punishment of the judgment of the first instance court against the defendant (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) The sentence of the first instance judgment against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the first instance court appears to have determined the punishment in consideration of both the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court, since new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial.

In addition, the sentencing of the court of the first instance is too heavy or unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, taking into account various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the offense, means and consequence of the offense, and the circumstances after the offense.

Therefore, each of the defendant and prosecutor's arguments on unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

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