All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 160 hours of community service order, 40 hours of order to attend a compliance driving lecture) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s above sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on the grounds that it is somewhat different from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the following, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment as the materials for new sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and the sentencing grounds revealed in the process of the argument in this case are not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or is fluent.

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