All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there are unique areas of the first instance court concerning sentencing, and in addition, considering the ex post facto and in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment just because it is somewhat different from the appellate court’

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial, and there is no change in the frequency of crime; the amount of damage is not more than seven times and not more than 14.49 million won; the crime is committed during the period of repeated crime; the crime was committed for the same kind of crime; and there was the history of being punished once for the same crime; however, considering all the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court, including the fact that a part of the damaged goods was temporarily returned and the damage was partly recovered, the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope because the sentencing of the lower court is too poor or too inappropriate.

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