A. The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from 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 aforementioned legal doctrine, determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, and the lower court, even though the Defendant was aware of the circumstance that the Defendant was making a confession of all crimes at the trial, he/she did not receive a letter from the injured party up to the trial, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court cannot be deemed unfair by taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.