2. We examine both the judgment and the prosecutor’s respective unfair claims for sentencing.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The fact that the Defendant has already been punished several times for violent crimes, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being familiar with the period during which the same crime was suspended, is disadvantageous.

However, it is advantageous to the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the degree of interference with the business of this case is not relatively much severe.

The court below appears to have determined the sentence of the court below in light of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions different from those of the court below in the first instance.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or is too heavy and unreasonable.

All of the arguments that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor are unfair are dismissed.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.