All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. On the summary of the grounds for appeal, the defendant asserts that it is too unreasonable for the defendant to keep the sentence sentenced by the court below (limited to six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, 40 hours of imprisonment, and confiscation), and that the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although it is recognized that the Defendant was unable to receive a letter from the victim until the health room and the trial room, the lower court determined the sentence in consideration of the various circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant was against the crime and that the video was not disseminated, and that the Defendant did not have any criminal power at the same time, and that there was no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court on the ground that there was no new submission of sentencing data to be considered in the trial.

In full view of all the factors revealed in the records and arguments of this case, the sentencing of the court below is too heavy or it is difficult to hold the court below out of the reasonable scope of discretion because it is fluent.

The defendant and prosecutor's assertion are without merit.

3. The appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is groundless, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.