All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s sentencing (eight years of imprisonment) is so excessive that it is unfair (defendants). On the contrary, the above sentencing is so unfair that it is too unfasible and unfair (prosecutors). 2. Determination on the sentencing on the basis of statutory penalty is based on a reasonable and appropriate range of discretion that takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51

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 rendered the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing stated in its reasoning. The circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the sentencing asserted by the Defendant and the prosecutor in the trial are already considered in the lower court’s determination of the punishment, and the lower court’s determination of the punishment was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem that there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing in the trial, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below.

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

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit. It is so ordered.