All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. It is desirable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance judgment, and the sentencing of the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court.

The crime of this case is very bad and planned, and the victim seems to have suffered significant mental suffering and shock due to the crime of this case, and the defendant was not able to receive any stuff from the injured party and the victim wanted to receive a severe punishment against the defendant.

The crime of this case was committed in the attempted crime, the defendant led to the confession and reflect of the crime, and the defendant committed a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) at the Chuncheon District Court on February 3, 2014, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months and two years of suspension of execution, and there was no criminal record except for the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.). While the defendant has social adaptation ability (sociality index 88 and age 17 years of age and 6 months of society) within the normal scope, the defendant has a low intellectual disability level (I Q

In full view of such various circumstances, since the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too heavy or unhued so it cannot be deemed unfair, each of the Defendant and the prosecutor’s arguments in sentencing are without merit.

3. In conclusion, each appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.