All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The lower court’s sentence (in 8 months of imprisonment) is so excessive that it is unfair for Defendant 2 to be sentenced to punishment (unfair sentencing). The lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unfair (unfair sentencing). The lower court’s judgment on February 2, 199, based on statutory penalty, is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty

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 lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing stated in its reasoning. In full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, sex, family relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, and all of the sentencing factors indicated in the instant records and pleadings, including the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, family relation, circumstances after the crime, etc., in light of the fact that there is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be considered newly in the course of sentencing; and (b) the Defendant’s age, sex, family relation, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc., it cannot be said that

Therefore, we cannot accept all the argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.