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

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (six months of imprisonment) by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment that the defendant again committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime of the same kind, that is not agreed with the victim, and that he/she could have been punished for violent crimes is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and opposed to it is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above-mentioned normal relationship and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Commission (one month to two months of imprisonment) and other various conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, the judgment of sentencing by the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

In addition, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in circumstances that it is unreasonable to maintain the sentencing of the lower court in the

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

3. 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.