All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

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

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). (b) Most of the circumstances asserted by the Defendant as an element favorable to sentencing in the first instance court were already discovered in the hearing of the lower court.

In light of the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 3 million to the victim additionally, but the fact that the injured party does not want the punishment of the Defendant is considered as the reasons for sentencing the lower court’s judgment, and that the amount of KRW 3 million additionally repaid to the victim is very small compared to the total amount of damage, it cannot be deemed unfair to maintain the first sentencing judgment solely on the basis of the foregoing additional repayment.

The crime of this case is a single-sing crime.