A. When considering the various circumstances of the defendant's defendant, the punishment of the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the contents of the instant crime committed by the prosecutor, the Defendant’s criminal records, the Defendant’s attitude after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unfeasible and unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant made a confession of the instant crime when the instant crime was committed in the trial; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime and did not have any substantial damage inflicted upon the victim by committing the instant crime; (c) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months for the violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act; and (d) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for the violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act during the suspended sentence period; and (e) the Defendant had the records of punishment for the instant crime six times (five times of the suspended sentence and one time of the suspended sentence), and other sentencing conditions as shown in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and behavior, and environment, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s punishment is excessively heavy

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.