A. In light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant has no record of exceeding the same criminal history or fine, the Defendant’s economic situation or health status is not good, and the Defendant claims that part of the Defendant paid damages to the victim, etc., the lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant did not properly recover damage to the victim and the amount of damage was considerable, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or is so fluent that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.