All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

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

2. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). As to the instant case, the health care unit, in light of the method of committing the instant crime, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and the attitude of the Defendant after committing the instant crime, etc., the nature of the instant crime is not good.

The total amount of damage exceeds 60 million won, and 35 million won has been paid up to 3 years since December 2012, 2012, which is the time of the completion of the crime.

Furthermore, the defendant has been punished twice for the same crime.

In this case, the Defendant asserts that when a judgment on probation becomes final and conclusive, it would not be possible to operate the D Care Center and G Care Center currently in operation because he/she is disqualified as a caregiver. However, even based on the data submitted by the Defendant, the head of the G Care Center, which is a medical welfare facility for the aged, is the head of the G Care Center and Community Center for the Aged

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant paid part of the monthly amount of damage according to the notarial deed prepared by the Defendant with the victim from December 2, 2014 to October 2015, the fact that the Defendant’s sentence would rather make it difficult to recover damage, and that the Defendant’s age, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, including circumstances after the crime, are considered, the sentencing of the first instance court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

Therefore, it is true.