All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing 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 does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole basis of the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the judgment of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendant to the said sentence.

The circumstances cited by the defendant and the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal are already factors that have sufficiently taken into account while determining the punishment in the original trial. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing on the grounds that there is no reason to newly consider in the appellate trial.

Specifically, there is no record that the defendant recognized all of his mistakes and was punished by imprisonment with prison labor in the past.

The crime was committed in the attempted crime, and the victim et al. agreed with the victim and expressed his intention that the victim does not wish to punish the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant committed the crime in a planned manner, and the illegality of the law and the attitude of the act is reasonable.

The defendant was killed in the company where he had worked prior to the instant case.