A. The lower court’s sentence (6 months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s above sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and the fact that the sentencing is made after the appellate court’s ex post facto review nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of discretion, which differs from the appellate court’s view, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, considering that no new data on sentencing have been submitted at the appellate court, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment, and comprehensively considering the reasons revealed in the pleadings in this case.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

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