A. The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. We examine the reasoning of the judgment and the prosecutor together.

The fact that the defendant deposited 5 million won for the victim in the court below, and that the defendant has no particular criminal record, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In this case, the defendant's head of a victim several times due to beer disease is heavy in light of the method and circumstances of the crime, etc., the fact that the crime was likely to have resulted in the physical and mental damage suffered by the victim due to this case, and the fact that the victim wants to punish the defendant is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, there is no change in special circumstances or circumstances that are newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, and in full view of all the sentencing circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, family relation, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court did not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

I seem to appear.

All of the above arguments by the defendant and the prosecutor are rejected.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is all dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Provided, That pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure ex officio, the lower court’s 10 acts on the two sides of the judgment below, “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act,” and the lower court’s 2 pages followed by the second page of the judgment, “Cerick” shall be corrected as “Cerick.”