All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended execution in August) 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 judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor and the defendant in the trial of the lower court were revealed in the proceedings of the lower court, most of which were asserted in the trial, and the circumstance that the defendant additionally deposited KRW 2 million in the trial of the lower court was insufficient to see that the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim, and that the family members of the victim seek a severe punishment against the defendant, it is difficult to view the lower court’s punishment as a change of circumstances likely to be mitigated. In addition, taking into account the circumstances that were present in the lower court and the trial of the lower court, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and various sentencing conditions as well as the records and arguments after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too heavy or uneased.