All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (700,000 won) by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment that the Defendant did not have any record of punishment for the same type of crime, the Defendant came to know of the fact that the Defendant was delivered to social welfare facilities and was taking protective measures, and the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by chemicalizing the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, and that the amount of damage suffered by the victim is relatively large due to the instant crime is considered to be favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, despite the fact that the Defendant was punished by a fine due to other crimes, and despite the fact that the Defendant’s child abuse caused the Defendant’s child abuse and the protective measures were taken, it is not good that the Defendant committed such crimes, such as entering social welfare facilities without permission, destroying copying machines, etc., and that the Defendant did not seem to repent or reflect his mistake, etc., is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In full view of these factors of sentencing and other various conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, character, character, environment, economic circumstances, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, the prosecutor’s and the Defendant’s respective arguments are without merit.

3. In conclusion, since each appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant is without merit, all appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the costs of the trial by the court below and the court below are to be borne by the defendant pursuant to Articles 191(1), 190(1), and 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in the application of the law of the court below, the "Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act" is obvious that it is a clerical error in the "Article 70 and Article 69 (2) of the former Criminal Act" before being amended by Act No. 12575 of May 14, 2014. Thus, in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.