All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first sentence (6 months of imprisonment) of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

The Defendant explicitly withdrawn the assertion of mental disorder on the first trial date.

B. The lower court’s sentence No. 2 (7 million won in penalty) against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The argument of each appeal case against the judgment of the court below was consolidated in the court below's ex officio reversal decision.

However, the first instance court sentenced imprisonment with labor and the second instance court to a fine, and where each sentence of the lower court is different, such as imprisonment with labor and a fine, the appellate court can maintain the respective sentence sentenced by the lower court even if the arguments were combined in the appellate court, and it does not necessarily require that the same sentence be sentenced.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not reversed ex officio on the sole ground of the consolidation itself, and it is decided on both appeals respectively.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court with respect to both parties’ unfair assertion of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health team, the circumstances favorable to the Defendant cited by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal against the first instance judgment, and the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant cited by the Prosecutor on the grounds of appeal against the second instance judgment against the lower judgment, are all the circumstances that the lower court already considered or was suspended in each of the lower judgment.

In addition, even if the determination of the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, even if the overall sentencing conditions stated in the arguments in the instant case, such as the issues of invalidation of the suspended sentence, the family environment of the defendant, economic circumstances, motive and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc.

It is difficult to evaluate.

Therefore, both parties.