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

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

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

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The prosecutor and the Defendant’s respective sentencing factors are reflected in the lower court, and most of them are reflected in the lower court, and there is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines with regard to the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

It appears that the defendant recognized each of the crimes in this case, and the fact that the defendant should consider the equality with the case where the judgment is rendered simultaneously with the special property damage crime, etc. which became final and conclusive on September 15, 2017 is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, each of the crimes of this case committed repeatedly against nine neighbors, without any special reason, such as assault, bodily injury, interference with business, etc., and thus, the nature of the crime is bad, and it was not received from the victims.