A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below (4 months of imprisonment and 1 year of suspended execution) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the following: (a) the prosecutor’s judgment and the Defendant’s respective arguments of unfair sentencing together with each other; (b) the Defendant did not commit the instant crime against the victim, who is one of his students, even though having been subject to suspension of indictment by causing an injury to the students of the Defendant’s previous way; (c) the instant crime appears to have expressed his decentralization, etc. by an act of violence; (d) the degree of injury to the victim is heavy; and (e) the Defendant’s recovery of or did not have agreed on the damage to the victim, etc., the Defendant should be punished with severe punishment.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) the Defendant has no particular history of criminal punishment; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, means and consequence of the crime; and (d) all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, as the prosecutor asserts that the sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible or unreasonable, or it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable as the defendant asserts, so the prosecutor's and the defendant's above assertion are without merit.

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