The defendant asserts that the sentencing of the court below (one hundred months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentencing of the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

Considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant made a confession of the instant crime and reflects the depth of the instant crime; (b) the commission of the instant crime was favorable to the Defendant, including the fact that the instant crime was committed on one-time medication of phiphones; (c) the Defendant had been sentenced to criminal punishment for a total of six times including the past five times of punishment for the same crime; (d) the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for the same kind of crime; and (e) the Defendant committed the instant crime without any reflection despite the period of repeated crime; and (e) the Defendant does not seem to be against the truth, such as refusing to make a statement at an investigative agency; and (e) the balance of sentencing with the instant similar case; (e) the motive and process of the instant crime; (f) the motive and circumstance of the instant crime; (f) the Defendant’s age after the instant crime was committed; and (f) the records and arguments of this case, which are the conditions for sentencing specified in the

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.