A. In light of the fact that the Defendant recognized the facts of the crime, and agreed with the victims, the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the prosecutor Defendant planned to commit the instant crime and led the commission of the instant crime, and the amount of damage and the frequency of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and 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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no particular data on sentencing submitted in the trial, and there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of the instant case, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or is so fluent that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.