All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. As to the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing), the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is too unfasible, and that the prosecutor is too unfased and unfair, as it is too unfased.

2. Determination

A. Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area for the first deliberation of sentencing.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to restrain the reversal of the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion, and the sentence of the first instance judgment is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) In this case, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a new evidence that can reverse the sentencing of the lower court solely on the basis of the reference materials (Articles and broadcast reports) submitted by the Defendant (the contents of articles and broadcast reports) to the lower court.

It is difficult to see it.

As the court below was not submitted, there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the court below, and taking full account of all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the court below's punishment was too heavy or it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it was frighted.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.