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

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment because new data on sentencing have not been submitted at the trial, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment. The circumstances in which the Defendant and the public prosecutor alleged that the sentencing was unfair (the fact that the Defendant is unable to repeat and repeat the offense), the Defendant caused a traffic accident by drinking, again driving a drinking again more than two months, and the driving of drinking twice is very high in alcohol level, and the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc. are already reflected in the lower court’s sentencing, and the lower court’s reasonable discretion does not seem to have been excessive or excessive beyond the scope of oral sentencing.

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