All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Compared to the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing by both parties, there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and where the court below’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Sentencing factors asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor in the grounds of appeal appear to have been fully considered by the lower court in determining the sentence. Since new sentencing materials were not submitted, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court.

In that the defendant knew of the victim's disease, he unilaterally assaults the victim and eventually causes death, the crime is heavy.

Of course, the victims and their bereaved family members are likely to suffer huge shocks and pains that make it difficult to measure them.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the defendant has made a serious effort to recover damage, and there is still no evidence from the bereaved family members of the victim.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes in this case, there is no criminal record exceeding the suspended sentence, and the fact that the defendant is aged is considered favorable to the defendant.

In full view of such factors as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. as well as favorable or unfavorable circumstances, the sentencing of the lower court is not deemed to have been too weak or unreasonable, and thus, goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

All the arguments between the defendant and the prosecutor disputing the propriety of sentencing of the court below are rejected.

2. Conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is dismissed.