All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (two years of imprisonment) by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is a factor of sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant, such as: (a) the defendant stolen a vehicle under the same method during a repeated offense due to the same theft; (b) the defendant driven the vehicle under the influence of alcohol or without a license after about one year; (c) the defendant did not take any measures after causing an accident that shocks another; and (d) repeated the police vehicle, which was towed, to stop and continue to flee, and the degree of about 40km is not good; and (c) the police officer, who was able to take part in the two police patrol vehicles and one motor vehicle in the criminal brake vehicle, was injured for about three weeks or two weeks; and (d) there was considerable damage to the defendant, such as the fact that the gas station located in the dry field was found to have been assembled as a vehicle due to the progress of the vehicle.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided; (b) there is no serious damage to a happy citizen; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment; (d) motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime; and (e) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed to be adequate, too heavy or unreasonable.

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

(However, the judgment of the court below is correct because it is obvious that "I" recorded in the ordinary concurrence part among the laws and regulations of the court below is a clerical error, and it is corrected to "H of the patrol car," and the judgment of the court below