A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment and fine of two hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the factors revealed during the pleadings in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too heavy or unfilled, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

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

3. Of the judgment below’s correction of the written judgment of the court below, the phrase “long-term four years,” “long-term four years,” the phrase “Article 1 of the Act applicable to the crime of 1. The phrase “1. applicable to the crime of 1. crime” means “Article 46 of the Act on the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation,” “Article 46 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation,” “Article 8 of the same Act,” and “Article 35 of the Criminal Act,” “Article 35 of the Criminal Act,” and “Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure,” are clearly written errors of “Article 35 of the Criminal Act,” and “Article 25(1) of the Regulations on the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation.”

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