All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal asserts to the effect that the sentencing of the lower court is unreasonable in light of various circumstances, including the fact that there is no economic surplus to pay the amount of fine, and the prosecutor asserts to the effect that the sentencing of the lower court is too uneasible.

2. Where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor as an element of sentencing are already revealed in the proceedings of the lower court’s pleadings, or the lower court appears to have sufficiently taken into account in determining the Defendant’s punishment. There is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines and the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.

Considering the circumstances indicated by the lower court on the grounds of sentencing comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and cannot be deemed as inappropriate and unfair as otherwise alleged by both parties.

The defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. The appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.