All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court of the judgment, and 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). The instant crime is a case where the Defendant was driving a vehicle with disabilities owned by the victim and thus the nature of the relevant crime is not less severe, and the Defendant has already been subject to criminal punishment several times for the same crime, and in particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being able to do so during the period of repeated offense due to the same kind of crime, and is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects the mistake, was detained for two months, and the fact that the damaged vehicle was returned to the victim and the damage was restored is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and other factors of sentencing as seen above, including the background of the instant crime, the age of the Defendant, sexual conduct, environment, etc., the sentencing of the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion for sentencing because it is too heavy or fluent.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument are without merit.

3. In conclusion, each appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit. Thus, all appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Provided, however, the judgment of the court below is correct to delete ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, since it is apparent that "the proviso to Article 42" of "the addition of repeated crimes" among "the application of statutes" of the court below is written by mistake.