A. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court judgment on the sole ground of the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment on the grounds that new sentencing materials are not submitted in the first instance court, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions as compared with the lower court’s judgment on the grounds that the crime was extremely poor in light of the background of the instant crime and the applicable law, while the Defendant’s confession of the crime, the degree of injury, the victim is relatively less than the degree of punishment, and the lower court’s judgment is too excessive or excessive beyond the reasonable scope of sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit. Thus, all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.