A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and three months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. As to each of the unlawful sentencing arguments by the Defendant and the prosecutor, there is a need to strictly punish the persons involved in the instant crime in light of the following: (a) the instant crime was committed by deceiving older victims and allowing them to withdraw cash; and (b) it is not good to commit the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant’s participation in the instant crime was not easy to take part in the instant crime, such as taking intrusion upon the victim’s residence and taking part in cash directly; (d) the Defendant recognized the instant facts charged at the trial and reflects his mistake; and (e) the amount of damage was returned to the victim; and (e) the Defendant appears not to have led to the instant crime; and (e) the Defendant did not appear to have taken into account the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age and/or circumstances favorable to the Defendant; and (e) the lower court’s allegation that there were no undue circumstances or circumstances, such as the Defendant’s family relationship, etc., and thus, it appears that the Defendant’s punishment was excessive.

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