All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

1. The lower court partly accepted the applicant B’s application for compensation, and the Defendant is deemed to have appealed the part of the compensation order pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings by filing an appeal against the lower judgment. However, the Defendant did not assert the grounds for appeal regarding the part that cited the compensation order by the lower court, and even if ex officio examination was conducted, the part that cited the compensation order by the lower court cannot find grounds for cancelling or changing the part that cited the compensation order by the lower

Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation. Thus, the remaining rejection portion of the applicant for compensation among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment in this court.

2. Regarding the gist of the reasons for appeal (a half year and June) of the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (a half year and June), the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s punishment is too heavy, and the prosecutor’s punishment is too unhued and thus unfair.

3. The Criminal Litigation Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, has a unique area for the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment because new sentencing data are not submitted in the trial court, and the sentencing reasons revealed in the proceedings of the instant case are considered to have been too poor, or they exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, by taking into account the following factors: (a) the lower court’s sentencing was too unfavorable or unafford.

It does not appear.

Therefore, prosecutor and defendant's assertion are without merit.

4. Conclusion, prosecutor and prosecutor.