All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s respective punishment (4 months of imprisonment and 1 year and 2 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s each sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendant to the said punishment.

The circumstances cited by the defendant and the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal are already factors that have sufficiently taken into account while determining the punishment in the original trial, and there is no circumstance that can be specially considered in the trial, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing.

Specifically, the defendant's mistake is recognized in all, and the punishment should be imposed in consideration of equity with the case of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, in which a judgment has become final and conclusive.

The defendant paid the amount of damage to some victims and returned part of the amount of damage.

These circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant is identical.