A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor and the Defendant as sentencing factors have already been discovered in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently taken into account, and there is no particular change of circumstances in the matters subject to sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.

Also, considering all sentencing factors in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the lower court is too heavy or it is too low, and it does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant acknowledged the instant crime; (b) the Defendant has committed the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant has not committed the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant has committed the instant crime as a counselor at the end of the organization of the instant Bosing crime; and (b) the Defendant has been working as a counselor at the end of the organization of the instant Bosing crime.

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

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.