All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing 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 the unique area of the first instance court

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,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, taking into account the unfavorable circumstances and favorable circumstances against the Defendant, determined a punishment within a reasonable scope.

It is difficult to find new circumstances in the trial.

Considering this, the sentence of the court below is too heavy or unreasonable.

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

However, among the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, it is clear that the "paragraph (1)" in the fourth, third, and seventh classes under the second sentence of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the "paragraph (a)", and it is decided to change it. Since the "purpose" in the second sentence of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the "purpose", it is obvious that the "purpose" in the fourth and second sentence