The defendant and prosecutor's appeal are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment, three years of employment restriction, etc.) is unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is unreasonable as it is unhutiled.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant and prosecutor’s assertion on the principal sentence, the sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of the first instance court is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of the discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing specified in the process of the first instance sentencing deliberation and the sentencing criteria, or it is reasonable to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing deliberation, etc., the determination of the first instance court shall be reversed in an unfair judgment.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court: (a) determined the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines by deeming that the victim was not subject to punishment under the agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant; (b) determined the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines, which is the element of mitigation in the application of sentencing guidelines; (c) the Defendant appears to have an attitude to rationalize and reduce his/her crime beyond simply denying the crime; and (d) the Defendant appears to have continuously rationalizing the crime without the awareness of the crime; and (c) the victim was unable to appear in the investigative agency and the lower court to make repeatedly statements on his/her damage to the crime. The instant crime is