All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentencing (three years of suspended sentence for two years of imprisonment) of the gist of the grounds for appeal is so excessive that it is unfair (defendants). On the contrary, the above sentencing is too uneasible and unfair ( prosecutors). 2. The judgment of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, based on the two factors that are conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and is reasonable and appropriate.

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 first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant with regard to the sentencing, and the circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial by the Defendant and the prosecutor are already considered in the lower court’s determination of the sentence.

According to this, it is difficult to view the sentencing judgment of the court below as exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below, in a situation where there is no new circumstance to the extent that the evaluation of the defendant's responsibility for action is different.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant and prosecutor's argument.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.