A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence sentenced by the prosecutor (eight months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant recognized the instant crime on the grounds of health class and the Defendant’s first instance trial, but this does not appear to have changed to the extent to which the lower court’s sentencing would be changed. In addition, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant and the Prosecutor on the grounds of unfair sentencing are deemed to have been reflected in the grounds for sentencing of the lower court. Moreover, the circumstances in which the Defendant and the Prosecutor alleged on the grounds of unfair sentencing have already been considered to have already been reflected in the grounds for sentencing of the lower court. In full view of the fact that a new sentencing data was not submitted at the trial, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the instant argument, such as Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc.,

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.