All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (nine months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We also examine each of the unfair sentencing arguments between the Defendant and the prosecutor.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

The Criminal Procedure Law of Korea, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and direct care, has the unique area of the first deliberation about the determination of sentencing.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto in light of the nature of the appellate court’s ex post facto review, the first sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in the first sentencing review process and the sentencing guidelines, etc.

In a case where the appellate court recognizes that maintaining the sentencing of the first instance court is unfair in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review, etc., the appellate court should reverse the judgment of the first instance court which was unfair. However, in a case where no change exists in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, sentenced the Defendant to nine months of imprisonment and the confiscation.

The circumstances alleged by the defendant and the prosecutor regarding the sentencing in the trial of the party have already been taken into account at the hearing of the court below, and in particular, the court below considered the "the fact that the defendant's health status is not significantly good and that he supports his family" in the court below as favorable to the defendant, and the court below has already taken into account in the trial of the party.