All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of the court below (unfairly unfair) is unfair because the sentencing of the defendant (the offenses listed in the table of crime Nos. 1-a, 2-a, 3 and 4 in the table of crime committed: imprisonment in 7 months; imprisonment in 1-b, 2-b, 3 and 4 in the table of crime committed by the defendant (the offenses listed in the table of crime Nos. 4 through 7 in the table of crime committed by the defendant: imprisonment in 8 months) is excessively unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing of the prosecutor (e.g., indubly unfair) is unreasonable as it is too unhued.

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 to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases 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, 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,

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning of sentencing, imposed the above sentence on the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant was led to the confession and reflect of all crimes; (b) the Defendant did not have the same criminal record; and (c) in order to create a means of access connected to the account in the name of a juristic person that the Defendant would be able to commit a crime, the lower court established a floating juristic person by pretending the payment of the share capital; (d) opened an account in the name of a juristic person that was established; and (e) made the connected means of access to the said account; and (e) made