2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable conditions for the Defendant.

The circumstances alleged by the defendant as the reasons for appeal (such as the reflection of the amount of damage, the total amount of damage recovery, etc.) and the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as the reasons for appeal (such as the fact that the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime two times) are considered already in the sentencing process of the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

In addition, taking into account the circumstances cited by the Defendant and the Prosecutor as the grounds for appeal, even if considering the character, conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the Defendant’s criminal act as indicated in the pleadings at the lower court and the party hearing, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

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