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

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

2. The judgment of the defendant, after being hired as a restaurant delivery service, committed a crime under the water law with a view to dumping off stoba and cutting off if the amount of food is paid. The frequency of such crime exceeds six times, even if there was a history of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, the victim and the defendant committed the crime of this case again despite the fact that there is no agreement with the victim, and the elements of sentencing that are unfavorable to the defendant, such as the economic situation, the fact that the defendant committed the crime for the purpose of maintaining livelihood, and other favorable factors that are favorable to the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines and the scope of sentenced sentencing guidelines (one to one year and four months of imprisonment). In full view of the above circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the court below's excessive sentence against the defendant is too heavy or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.