A. The sentence of the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial court. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed that the sentencing is too somewhat weak or unreasonable, and thus, exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.