All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) of the gist of the grounds for appeal is so excessive that it is unfair (the Defendant). On the contrary, the above sentencing is too unfasible and unfair (the Prosecutor). 2. The sentencing judgment is based on the statutory penalty, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and reasonable scope.

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 first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant with regard to the sentencing, and the circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial by the Defendant and the prosecutor are already considered in the lower court’s determination of the sentence.

While the defendant suspects that the victim D (n, 59 years of age) who attended with another male is in doubt of having contact with the other male, the defendant committed not only the victim's bodily injury, such as the injury of the internal wall, the closure of the internal wall, and the cerebral rupture in need of approximately 4 weeks of treatment, but also the injury of the brain rupture in need of three weeks of treatment, and committed the three-time intimidation, and also the crime of attempted fire prevention of the existing structure.