All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions 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 court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendant to the said punishment.

The circumstances cited by the defendant and the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal are already factors that have been sufficiently considered while determining the punishment in the original trial. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing on the grounds that there are no circumstances that can be specially considered in the trial.

(A) The above victim D was submitted to the court on August 21, 2020. However, the above victim already expressed his intention not to punish the defendant at the court below, and the court below reflected this intent and decided the punishment). Specifically, the defendant recognized his mistake and is in depth against the defendant.

The victims expressed their desire not to punish the defendant.

Each of the crimes of this case and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes.