A. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant (10 months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s above sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The fact that the Defendant was in the first instance, and the Defendant appears to have both recognized and reflected the crime of aiding and abetting fraud, the period of participation is shorter than that of the Defendant, and that there was no record of having been sentenced to punishment or imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment for the same kind of crime, is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the so-called “scaming” crime, such as the instant crime, consists of organized, planned, and intelligently, has significant social harm, and even if only part of the crime is involved because it is difficult to arrest the entire organization, it is necessary to severely punish the crime. The Defendant’s participation in withdrawal and remittance is not limited to keeping the card, but is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In full view of each of the above circumstances and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the instant pleadings, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or too harsh.

Therefore, each of the above arguments by the defendant and the prosecutor is rejected.

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