A. The sentence of imprisonment (one year and eight months, confiscation, collection, and compensation order) of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is too unreasonable.

(b) The sentence of the first instance judgment against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of 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.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, even if the court of first instance has repeatedly considered the circumstances specifically stated by the court of first instance, such as the following: (a) the nature of the criminal act of Bosing, the nature of the crime of committing Bosing, the amount of damage, the degree of the defendant’s participation, the amount of criminal proceeds, and whether the damage was recovered, it is not deemed that the court of first instance

It cannot be deemed that fundamental changes have occurred in sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court. Moreover, considering the various circumstances, such as Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court of first instance is too heavy or unfasible to the reasonable extent of discretion, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the court of first instance is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, each of the defendant and prosecutor's arguments on unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

3. The appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.