Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The defendant asserts that with respect to the punishment (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) declared by the court below, the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court determined a punishment by taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant embling another’s land without permission to change the form and quality of illegal land; (b) the Defendant had the same criminal power; and (c) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake and reflects it; and (d) there are no new circumstances to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

In addition, considering various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the method and circumstances of committing the crime, the damaged area by the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, as shown in the argument of the court below and the party hearing, the punishment imposed by the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not harsh or light.

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