Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. As to the sentence (one month of imprisonment and ten months of imprisonment) declared by the court below, the defendant asserts that the prosecutor is too unfasible and unfair, while the prosecutor is too unfased.

2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, 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). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined the Defendant’s punishment by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

Defendant

In addition, the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal are already considered in the sentencing process of the court below, and the victim of the crime of destroying property expressed his/her intention not to be punished by the defendant in the trial of the court below, but it does not seem that there is a new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, health conditions (such as the early illness, etc.), motive, means, and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines as indicated in the deliberation proceedings at the lower court and the political party, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be too heavy or unfair as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. According to the conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.