All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed to the court below's decision that the defendant's punishment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, while the prosecutor appealed to the court below's decision that it is too uneasible and unreasonable.

(The prosecutor stated his opinion that the defendant should be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years). 2. Determination of the defendant did not cause severe damage due to each crime, and all of his crimes are recognized.

On the other hand, however, the victims were punished for the defendant because the defendant had committed a repeated crime again during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime and has not recovered at all.

In light of the factors of sentencing in this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, in light of the responsibility to commit the crime of attack again to the same victim while being investigated as a result of the crime of interference with business, and the fact that there is no change in the sentencing conditions in the trial, it is not recognized that the sentence of imprisonment of one year as determined by the court below is too heavy or unreasonable because it is within the scope of reasonable discretion.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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