Defendant

All appeals filed by the Defendants B and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants by the prosecutor (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment and 2 years of probation, 40 hours of lecture order for compliance driving, 200 hours of community service order, Defendant B: 3,00,000 won of fine) is too uneased and unfair.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to Defendant A’s first instance trial, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment because new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too unfilled and so, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

The prosecutor's improper argument in sentencing is without merit.

B. We examine Defendant B and the Prosecutor’s argument together.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment because new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the reasons for sentencing revealed during the argument in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too heavy or unhued, and thus, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

The argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.

3. As such, the appeal against the Defendants by Defendant B and the Prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.