All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence (2,00,000 won) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The lower court sentenced the above punishment by taking into account favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant was in depth divided his mistake, the fact that he could have been tried together with the crime of conflict in the judgment that became final and conclusive, and the fact that he has yet to ageed.

In addition to the circumstances taken into account by the court below, the following circumstances may be taken into account: (a) under the circumstances that the court below committed each of the instant crimes during the suspension period for the same kind of crime; (b) the victims have not reached agreement with the victims up to the trial; and (c) the extent of the Defendant’s assault against T is not serious.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, background leading to the commission of the crime, degree of participation in the crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence imposed by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance in which the assessment or maintenance is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable as it is alleged by the Defendant and the prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (in the case of the part of the "applicable law" of part 4 of the judgment below, the processing of concurrent law is omitted, and it is obvious that it is due to mistake, and therefore, it is ex officio and according to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, "1."