A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) 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 with 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 to the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant and the prosecutor on the grounds of unfair sentencing are deemed to have been reflected in the grounds for sentencing by the lower court. The Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion on the grounds of unfair sentencing are considered to have already been reflected in the grounds for sentencing by the lower court. Since the social harm of the Defendant is extremely severe, the degree of the Defendant’s participation is inevitable, and the degree of the Defendant’s participation is not easy, and other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s sentencing does not seem to be deemed to have been excessively excessive or un

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.