A. In light of the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and the amount of damage caused by the crime of this case is a small amount, the punishment of the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had the record of punishment for the same crime, and the number of the instant crimes is many and the nature of the crime is poor, the punishment of the lower judgment (eight months) is too uneased and unfair.

2. The criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, has a unique area for the determination of sentencing in the first instance, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing in 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). There is no significant change in the terms of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and even if the materials submitted in the first instance court were submitted, there is no significant change in the terms of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment. In full view of all the reasons indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.

3. The appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion are without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.