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

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, and even considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal, it is not recognized that the sentence of the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable (it is recognized that the Defendant denied a crime in the lower court, but, even though the Defendant was found to have denied it in the lower court’s trial, the confession of it in the party trial and reflects his/her mistake in depth.

3. Conclusion, the defendant.