A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, three years of probation, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on the grounds that it is somewhat different from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the following, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment as the materials for new sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and the sentencing grounds revealed in the course of the argument in this case are not deemed to have been too heavy in sentencing or exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion due to the absence of any significant change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment.

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