All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. As to the gist of the reasons for appeal (eight months of imprisonment), the Defendant asserts that the punishment is too unafford, and that the prosecutor is too unafford and thus unfair.

2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court, if there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even if considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it does not seem that the sentencing of the lower court is too heavy or unhued, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant and prosecutor's above arguments are without merit.

3. Conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is all dismissed.