2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable conditions for the Defendant.

The circumstances in which the defendant asserts as the grounds for appeal (such as the reflection of gender, self-denunciation, etc.) and the circumstance in which the prosecutor asserts as the grounds for appeal (not only several times the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime, but also the fact that the defendant again committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime) seems to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime committed by the defendant as revealed in the arguments at the court below and the party hearing, the sentence of the court below is too heavy or unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

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