A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As no new data on sentencing have been submitted at the trial court, there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, and circumstances in which the Defendant and the Prosecutor alleged for unfair reasons for sentencing are already reflected in the lower court’s sentencing grounds, and other circumstances, including the motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, are considered to have already been reflected in the lower court’s sentencing grounds. In full view of all, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to be too unfavorable or unreasonable, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.