A. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the Defendant, the sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment for six months, the suspension of execution for two years, the community service order 120 hours, and the compliance driving lecture for 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of all the sentencing conditions of the prosecutor, the sentence of the lower court is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination of the grounds for appeal of this case is recognized as favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant has recognized all of the crimes of this case and is repented in depth, that the defendant is the first offender, that the defendant is not healthy, and that the defendant's vehicle is covered by a comprehensive insurance.

However, in full view of the various sentencing conditions of Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, etc., the lower court’s punishment is adequate, too heavy, or too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit. In so doing, each of the grounds for unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor are 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.