All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the court below sentenced the defendant to one year and six months of imprisonment, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the court below is too uneasible and unfair, and the defendant asserts that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the argument of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor in a lump sum.

In the past, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapon, etc.) in 2006 as an organization of locks in the past, and had been sentenced to punishment for 16 times for the same crime. Among them, the Defendant did not know about six times during the short period from the end of 2011 to the first half of 2012, and did not know about the fact that he was employed in the restaurant while drinking alcohol in the restaurant and drinking alcohol, and the cell phone located in the restaurant, which was an employee of the above restaurant, was in need of approximately four weeks medical treatment for the victim on the ground that the victim was "dicked" only. In light of the motive and background of the crime of this case, the Defendant’s character and conduct, and the same kind of power, etc., as well as the degree of danger of recidivism, and thus, the Defendant’s punishment for repeating the crime is required to be strictly imposed.

However, on May 30, 2012, the defendant found the victim hospitalized in the hospital following the occurrence of the crime of this case and agreed to pay 14.95 million won for the victim's father's consent, including medical expenses, etc. on May 30, 2012, and the victim complained of the defendant's preference. The defendant is suffering from the congenital disorder of old heat, and the second child with the congenital disorder of old heat and chronic hepatitis infection, so it seems necessary to look at the defendant's family and find it necessary to employ the defendant as a witness in this court. The president of the IO, who was employed by the defendant since 2007, will continue to employ the defendant in the future.