A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (limited to four months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

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

2. The judgment shows the attitude of the Defendant to make a confession and reflect all criminal facts when it comes to the trial, and some of the circumstances to be taken into account in the family environment of the Defendant are favorable to the Defendant. On the other hand, the criminal records due to the violation of the Road Act were 14 times, and the Defendant seems to interfere with the measurement of vehicle load by manipulating the axis of the automobile in order to prevent the detection of excessive freight lanes, and the fact that the nature of the crime is poor is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In full view of such various circumstances as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, the process and motive leading up to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or is deemed unreasonable on the ground that the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

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.