All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to drinking at the time of the instant crime. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in October, and forty hours of order to attend school) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the records of judgment on the Defendant’s claim of mental disability, the fact that the Defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime is recognized.

However, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the method and method of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Therefore, the defendant's argument on this point is without merit.

B. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In general, the lower court determined the punishment by taking into account various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all of the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or it is difficult to view that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by putting too heavy.

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor on this point are not justified.

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