All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants 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 of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor and the defendant as the sentencing factors in the trial of a party were mostly revealed in the hearing of the lower court, and there is no particular change in the situation in the sentencing guidelines with the matters subject to the sentencing conditions after the pronouncement of the lower judgment.

Even though the defendant had been punished more than 32 times due to the crime of false-use fraud in the same type, he again committed the crime of this case, and did not reach an agreement with the victims.

In addition, in full view of various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy or it exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion.