A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below (two months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. We also examine the judgment and the defendant's respective arguments on unreasonable sentencing.

In light of the fact that the defendant was sentenced to the suspended sentence for the same crime, without being being sentenced to the suspended sentence for the same crime, committed the crime in this case, and the nature of the crime is bad, the response to the training of the Mempis to the Mempis in the urine prosecutor runs away, and administered even after the escape, the defendant should be punished for severe punishment.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime; (b) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship; (c) motive, background, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (d) the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court did not find any circumstances where it is deemed that the lower court’s judgment of sentencing was deemed appropriate, and that it was unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion, or to maintain it as it is.

Therefore, as the prosecutor asserts that the sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

However, the prosecutor and the defendant's above assertion are without merit, since they cannot be deemed improper because they are too large as alleged by the defendant.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.