A. The amount of punishment imposed on the defendant (in six months of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended sentence) is unreasonable.

(b) Determination of an amount of punishment imposed on an applicant for inspection (unfair punishment) is unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined the amount of punishment by comprehensively taking account of the scale of crime, reflectivity, details of liquidation of money and valuables, recovery of considerable parts of damage, etc.

The court below did not err in selecting and applying the elements of sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions in the appellate court.

The determination of the original judgment cannot be respected.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although the sentencing guidelines do not apply to the ordinary concurrent relationship, this court’s review the sentencing factors and other factors of sentencing set forth in the sentencing guidelines, it does not seem that the amount of the original sentence is hot or unfasible beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is without merit.

All of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.