All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

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.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) In most cases, the circumstances alleged in the first instance trial as an element favorable to sentencing, such as the Defendant’s confession in the course of investigation as to a crime without doubt, were revealed in the oral proceedings of the lower court, and there is no particular change in circumstances related to the matters subject to sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, there are many criminal records favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the second part, the crime committed in the course of continuous transaction with the victim, and the fact that the obligation arising from other transactions seems to have been repaid for a considerable portion, and that the defendant seems not to have good health conditions.