All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor 1), although the Defendant was fully aware of the fact that the Defendant had diverted to each mountainous district for six days from June 8, 2015, including D, E, F, G, H, I, and C, the Defendant was not guilty of this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court is deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the actor, who used exclusively the mountainous district once every part of the facts charged, is the Defendant, and therefore, this part of the facts charged premised on the fact that the actor is the Defendant constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. In light of the records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor in the lower judgment.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. Considering the fact that the defendant had the same criminal record, strict punishment against the defendant is necessary to determine the unfair argument of sentencing between the defendant and the prosecutor.

However, considering the fact that the defendant's mistake is divided into old age, the scope of the defendant's exclusive use of mountainous district, and the age, sex and environment of the defendant, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate, and it does not seem unfair because it is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless, and thus, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.