A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete a program, 3 years of restriction on employment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court with respect 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, each of the crimes listed in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the court below is acknowledged on the instant case, based on the foregoing legal doctrine. However, this does not appear to have been changed to the extent to change the sentencing of the court below, and other circumstances alleged by the Defendant and the prosecutor on the grounds of unfair sentencing are deemed to have already been reflected in the grounds for unfair sentencing, and new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial of the court below. In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the offense, means and consequence of the offense, and circumstances after the offense, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or unhued, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.