All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (nine months of imprisonment) is too heavy or (the Defendant) it is too heavy.

2. We examine both the judgment and the prosecutor’s respective unfair claims for sentencing.

In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and where the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable circumstances.

The circumstances asserted by the defendant on the grounds of appeal (such as the most important fact that the defendant supports his family, the health situation of the defendant, the fact that the operation of the restaurant operated is considerably difficult due to a serious light color, the fact that there is no means to obtain the benefit of this case, the fact that there is no same record, and D and E that requested the defendant to mediate the philopon, and the fact that the defendant supplied it, etc.) and the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor (such as the fact that the amount of the philopon is considerably high and the poor nature of the crime, etc.) are already considered in the sentencing process of the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the first instance court.

When comprehensively taking into account the sentencing conditions, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, as shown in the deliberation and arguments by the court below and the party concerned, the sentence of the court below is too heavy or unfair as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (the defendant asserts that, in light of the equity in punishment, D, the purchaser of the instant phiphone, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment and thus, should be sentenced to a suspended sentence. However, unlike D, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to interference with auction before being sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to interference with auction.