A. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, while recognizing the fact of the instant crime, reflects the Defendant’s mistake in depth, and there are extenuating circumstances to consider the background leading to the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Considering that the Defendant, who had been punished several times, including punishment for the same crime as the instant case, committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times due to the same crime as the instant case, was committed during the period of repeated crime, and the nature of the instant crime is very poor in light of the content of the crime and the method, and the risk of recidivism is also considerable, the lower court’s above punishment is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the reasoning of the judgment, the court below seems to have determined the punishment by fully taking into account the above circumstances asserted by the defendant and the prosecutor, and there is no change in circumstances or circumstances that may newly consider the sentencing in the court of the first instance, and compared with the first instance court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing. Considering the various factors of sentencing emphasized by the defendant and the prosecutor in the grounds of appeal, the court below's punishment is deemed to be reasonable, and it is not deemed to be too heavy or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit. It is so decided as per