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

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

2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principles, in light of the foregoing, the court did not submit new data on sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court, and even if all the grounds for sentencing specified in the instant argument are comprehensive, it is not recognized that the first instance sentencing is too heavy or it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. As such, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, ex officio, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the judgment of the court below’s dismissal “D” as “H” is corrected as it appears that the judgment of the court below’s dismissal of