Since the Defendant and the prosecutor appealed on the conviction part of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing, the dismissal part of the lower judgment, which the prosecutor did not appeal, became final and conclusive as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction among the judgment below.

2. As to the summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment) by the lower court (e., one year of imprisonment), the Defendant asserts that it is too unreasonable for the Defendant, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too uneasible and unjust.

3. The Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects his wrongness.

In agreement with victim I and victim L, the victims do not want to punish the defendant.

However, the defendant was punished by larceny, etc., and the execution of punishment has not been completed, but there has been three-months from the time of the death, damage of property, and three-time obstruction of business.

The victim C and F did not compensate the victim C and F.

The defendant has been punished by imprisonment with prison labor, and is punished by the crime of causing property damage and the crime of interference with business.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the offense, and circumstances after the offense, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable.

The defendant and prosecutor's assertion of unreasonable sentencing are without merit.

4. 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

However, it is obvious that “(C)” is a clerical error in Section 13 of the judgment of the court below.