All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal - With respect to the punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, etc.), the defendant asserts that it is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, in a case where it is deemed that the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria that are the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing process, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the court below in full view of the materials newly discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing process, the appellate court shall reverse the unfair judgment of the court below.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

We examine whether the sentence of the lower judgment, which returned to the instant case, is too heavy in light of the substance of the specific case, or is too unreasonable.

1. The court below held that ① the crime of this case was committed under the circumstances that: (a) the Defendant’s complaint in the process of performing his duties was found in the Gu office twice, resulting in the injury by the Defendant’s failure to commit the crime; (b) the crime was committed during the period of repeated crime after the Defendant was released from a similar crime; (c) the Defendant was committed during the period of repeated crime; and (d) the Defendant was seeking a severe mental shock; and (b) the Defendant appears to be against the Defendant’s acknowledgement of the crime.