All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal is unfair because the punishment (3 million won) imposed by the defendant is too unreasonable.

The punishment sentenced by the court below by the public prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

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.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds that the circumstances favorable to the sentencing alleged by the Defendant in the trial and the circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing alleged by the public prosecutor in the trial of a party are considered to have been sufficiently taken into account while having already determined the punishment at the lower court, and the lower court’s sentencing judgment based thereon exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It is difficult to see the sentencing conditions, and there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing in the trial. Therefore, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below.

Therefore, the argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.

3. Thus, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.