All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant asserts that the punishment of the court below (7 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the court below is too unfeasible and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 determined the sentencing of the Defendant, taking into account (i) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and motive of the Defendant’s act, intelligence and consequence of the instant crime, etc., as well as all the circumstances revealed in the arguments, including: (ii) the Defendant, under the unfavorable circumstances, was sentenced twice due to drinking driving, was under the revocation of a driver’s license due to drinking; (iii) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he was under the suspended sentence for six months after being sentenced to imprisonment for fraud in the Daegu District Court on July 22, 2016; and (iv) the Defendant did not repeat the crime in contravention of the favorable circumstances; and (iv) the Defendant did not have any history of punishment exceeding the same kind of offense.

As above, the sentencing of the court below appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above conditions of the sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing condition that can be deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the court below as it is. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the court below’s sentencing is too heavy or unreasonable because it is too low.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.