All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, observation of protection, and 160 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

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

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing 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.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing stated in its reasoning. The circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the sentencing claimed by the Defendant and the prosecutor are already subject to the sentencing in the course of the sentencing hearing of the lower court. As alleged in the Defendant’s trial at the trial, the lower court’s sentencing was exceeded the reasonable scope of the discretion solely on the ground that the Defendant submitted a written withdrawal of the complaint for the case against which the victims filed a complaint before and after the lower judgment was rendered.

It is difficult to see that there are changes in the conditions of sentencing in the trial, and the sentencing of the court below is determined on the grounds that there are no particular changes in the conditions of sentencing in the trial.