A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, although the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not err in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant's assertion of mistake as to the defendant's facts is identical to the assertion of mistake as to the above facts in the court below, and the court below judged the above facts from No. 2 to No. 8 of the judgment of the court below and explained the grounds for the judgment. In light of the records and thorough comparison of the evidence of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. We examine both the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s unfair determination of sentencing as to the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s unfair determination of sentencing.

In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment and the sentencing of the original judgment does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. As such, there is no new circumstance or special change in circumstances that can be reflected in the sentencing after the original judgment is rendered, and furthermore, if the lower court comprehensively takes into account the circumstances revealed in the grounds of sentencing and other various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court appears to be reasonable, and it cannot be deemed unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion and is too heavy or unab

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.