A. The sentence of the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant and the Prosecutor on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing were mostly taken into account during the oral proceedings of the lower court, and most of the circumstances alleged by the Defendant and the Prosecutor were taken into account, and there was no special change in circumstances regarding the matters on the conditions of sentencing after

In addition, in light of the following factors: (a) the Defendant paid the price of KRW 2 million in the trial at the court below; (b) however, in light of the following factors: (c) the amount not repaid by the date of the original judgment exceeds KRW 56 million; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment; (d) the background and motive leading to the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence is too heavy or unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

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

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the court below’s ex officio [criminal records] added “the confirmation on December 8, 2017” to the expiration column of the part of the judgment of the court below, and corrected to delete “the termination of the execution of a prison prison on March 27, 2018.”