A. Defendant 1) The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking while committing the instant crime.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment and fine of 200,000 won) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical disorder, even though the Defendant was deemed to have a drinking condition at the time of each of the instant crimes, in light of the Defendant’s reputation, background leading up to the commission of the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented and direct determination of the unfair argument of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, there exists a unique area of the first instance judgment as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment 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). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because new materials of sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and all of the factors of sentencing indicated in the records of this case are considered to have been too heavy or unhued, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the judgment of the court below is the case where repeated crimes are aggravated.