All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant is too unafford by the lower court’s punishment (a year and June, and confiscation), and the prosecutor appealed respectively as it is too unafford and unfair, as the above punishment is too unafford.

2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original court on the ground that new materials were not submitted in the trial and the new materials were not submitted in the trial, and in full view of all the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court, it is not recognized that the sentencing of the lower court is too large or unhued, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.