A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 the sentencing of the first instance court as an appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Health Center, the Defendant, and the Prosecutor as an element of sentencing were already revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation regarding the factors of sentencing after the lower judgment was rendered.

In addition, the number of means of access (section 22) kept by the Defendant is not a large number, and the Defendant withdraws cash through the means of access and transfers money, and the Defendant appears to have an attitude to recognize and reflect all the instant crimes, taking into account the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and pleadings, the sentencing of the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable because it is deemed to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, ought to be respected.

Therefore, we do not accept the argument of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.