A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant had the same criminal record, committed the instant crime during the period of probation, and the instant crime was committed by himself/herself while living together with himself/herself, resulting in an injury by carrying excessive excess of the victim, which is a dangerous object to arrange the relationship, and making the victim detained for a long time and causing injury, and the nature of the crime is not good, strict punishment against the Defendant is required.

However, the defendant's mistake is divided, the defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by agreement with the victim, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed appropriate, and it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too heavy or unfasible. Thus, 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 all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 281(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That the "Article 281(1) of the judgment of the court below is obvious that it is a clerical error in Article 281(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, since it is obvious that it is a clerical error in Article 281(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.