Defendant

All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B’s imprisonment (limited to eight months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor (as against Defendant A)’s sentence (as to a fine of 4 million won) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing on the grounds of Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing was submitted in the trial of the Party, along with Defendant B’s statement of opinion that he/she was undergoing surgery by using the 4-5 vertevis verteum verteum fl, 1,00, and the escape certificate of conical signboards between around 5-6-7 and both sides, and experienced low symptoms, light flick, and flick flick flick flick flick flick

However, even if considering the above circumstances, considering all of the following factors, considering the fact that marijuana smokes, the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period, and the Defendant’s age, environment, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is too excessive and is beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

B. It is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing against Defendant A, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from that of the appellate court on the sole ground that the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the first instance judgment falls within the scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment, as the materials for new sentencing have not been submitted at the time of examination and in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment. Other conditions of sentencing indicated in the records and arguments of this case, including Defendant A’s age, environment, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after