A. Defendant 1’s punishment (an amount of KRW 5 million) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s 2nd sentence (the 3 years of imprisonment, the 4 years of suspended execution, the 2 years of probation observation, the 40 hours of order to attend a lecture, the 200 hours of community service) is deemed to be too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the argument of each appeal case against the judgment of the court below against the judgment of the court of first and second in the trial, the court of first instance was merged, but the court of second instance was sentenced to a fine and the imprisonment with prison labor, and the appellate court did not reverse the judgment of the court below as to the appeal against the judgment of the court below on the sole ground of the consolidation itself, even if the argument of the court below is combined in the appellate court, if each of the punishments of the court below is different from the imprisonment with prison labor and the fine, the appellate court can maintain each of the punishments sentenced by the court below

B. In full view of the judgment of the court below regarding the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing against the judgment of the court below of first instance, including the following: (a) the area of the fishery place created by the Defendant without obtaining the permission of inland sea water cultivation is approximately 23,210 square meters; (b) the quantity of the cultivated woms is not a large amount; and (c) there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment; and (d) the various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, the Defendant’s above assertion is unreasonable.

(c)

In light of the following facts: (a) there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment; and (b) considering the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s punishment No. 2 cannot be deemed unfair; and (c) thus, the prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.