A. The sentence of the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and the fact that the sentencing is made after the appellate court’s ex post facto review nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment is within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence differs from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, the first instance court did not submit new data on sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s ex post facto review of all the records and arguments reasons in the instant case.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. As such, the appeal 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.