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) 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). Circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the sentencing asserted in the trial by the Defendant and the public prosecutor are deemed to have been sufficiently taken into account when determining the punishment in the lower court. The lower court’s sentencing judgment, based thereon, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It is difficult to see it.

The mere fact that the defendant recognized his criminal act in the trial of the party does not necessarily mean that it is unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the court below.

Therefore, since it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court, the argument that the sentencing of the Defendant and the Prosecutor is unfair is unacceptable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless, and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is reasonable.