All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

All applications for compensation by applicants for compensation in the trial of the party shall be dismissed.

1. In a case where an appeal against a judgment of conviction in the scope of a trial by this court is filed, the confirmation of a compensation order shall be prevented even without an objection to the compensation order, and the compensation order shall be transferred to the appellate court along with the accused case (Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). With respect to any matter that is not a ground for ex officio examination, the appellate court may conduct a trial only when it is entered in the petition of appeal or is included in the statement of reasons for appeal submitted within

Even if it is obvious that the adjudication can be made ex officio.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do1234 delivered on September 22, 1998. The court below affirmed B’s application for compensation, which is an applicant for compensation, and appealed against the judgment below, but the Defendant did not assert the grounds for appeal regarding the cited portion of the judgment below’s application for compensation, and even upon ex officio examination, it cannot find the grounds for cancelling or changing the cited portion of the judgment below’s application for compensation, and thus, the cited portion of the judgment below’s application for compensation remains intact.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

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

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, has no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in the case where the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, as there is no particular submission of new sentencing data in the health class and the trial.