A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine the reasoning of the judgment and the prosecutor together.

The crime of this case was committed by the defendant beyond several times in which the face of a female-friendly job offers victim was fluent, and the victim was strokeed several times, and the victim's head was fluenced and was damaged because the victim's cellular phone was not only the number of days of treatment but also the chemical was not defluent. In light of the circumstances and contents of the crime, the criminal liability is heavy, the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime several times, and the defendant committed the crime of this case even without being aware of the fact that he had been punished for the same kind of crime, and it was committed again without being aware of it during the suspension period of execution.

However, when the defendant made a confession of all the crimes of this case when he was in the trial, the defendant made an agreement with the victim, and the victim took an attitude of actively taking advantage of the defendant, such as establishing a relationship with the defendant on August 16, 2018 by filing a marriage report with the defendant on August 16, 2018. Furthermore, it seems clear that the social relation of the defendant is evident, such as the victim's appearance in the trial court at the trial court at the time of the party, and the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., and all other circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, are considered to be unfair because the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair, rather than unfair, as argued by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the defendant's improper argument of sentencing is justified, and the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and therefore, the defendant's appeal is in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.