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

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

2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, where there exists a unique area of the first deliberation on sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it even in the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant recognized the instant crime.

However, the degree of injury suffered by the victim due to the crime of injury in this case is serious.

The defendant is highly likely to threaten the victim by using kacks.

Nevertheless, the defendant was unable to receive a letter or to reach an agreement from the injured party.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, as shown in the deliberation by the court below and the party concerned, the sentence of the court below is too heavy, or is deemed unfair, because it is too heavy, or it is frighten.

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