All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The court below rejected the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, but pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the court below rejected the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, and the part dismissing the application for compensation was immediately finalized.

Therefore, the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Considering the fact that the Defendant had no criminal history of the same kind of crime as the instant case, and the Defendant and the victim are deemed to reflect in depth the mistake while putting the Defendant a substitute for the crime, and that the Defendant and the victim merely have taken video images for a simple complaint as an interested person, it is unfair that the lower court’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment, forty hours of order to complete program, and employment restriction order) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

In addition, the defense counsel explicitly withdraws the assertion of mistake on the date of the first trial.

B. In light of the content of the instant crime committed by the public prosecutor and the victim’s mental suffering, the nature of the crime is not weak, and no effort is made to recover the damage, and the victim wants to be punished against the Defendant, and the need for strict punishment for the so-called “malek” crime and the circumstances after the crime are very poor, the above punishment of the lower court is rather unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

In light of the above legal principles, we look back to the instant case, and the lower court based on its reasoning for sentencing as stated in its holding.