A. The punishment (one million won of a fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court. In full view of the factors revealed in the instant pleadings, the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or is so unfluent that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument are without merit.

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

(However, since it is obvious that the "Article 19" in the third six parallels of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the "No. 19", it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.