All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. As to the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing), the defendant asserts that the defendant's punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, one year of suspended execution, five million won, etc.) is too unreasonable, and that the prosecutor is too unfied and unfair.

2. The appellant in relation to the appeal of a defendant shall submit a written reason for appeal to the appellate court within 20 days from the date on which he/she receives notice of the record of trial (Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and if he/she fails to submit a written reason for appeal within the said period, the appellate court shall dismiss the appeal by decision (Article 361-4(1) of the same Act). The defendant is obvious that, even if he/she receives a notice of receipt of the record of trial from this court on September 29, 2017, he/she did not submit a written reason for appeal within the submission period, and it is evident that the petition of appeal does not contain any reason for appeal.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed by decision in accordance with Articles 361-4 (1) and 361-3 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the court rendered a judgment on the prosecutor's appeal as follows, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed by judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's appeal

A. Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area for the first deliberation of sentencing.

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 first instance judgment if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, the first instance judgment is reversed solely on the grounds that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and it is different from the first instance judgment.