A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 sentencing factors expressed in the proceedings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing an offense, and circumstances after committing an offense, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have been too heavy or unhued so far as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, each of the defendant and prosecutor's arguments is 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, since all of the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are

(However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, it shall be corrected that the part of the 3rd page of the judgment of the court below is deleted.