A. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The facts that the Defendant is the primary offender of the judgment, the confession of the instant crime and the violation of his mistake, and the fact that all of the loans acquired by the Defendant do not have been acquired as profits, are favorable to the Defendant. However, the instant crime was committed in collusion by several persons including the Defendant, thereby taking part in the systematic and planned crime to stabilize the housing of homeless workers by abusing the entire loan system, and thus the nature of such crime is poor. The Defendant is not deemed to be less likely to take part in the instant loan as a false lessee. The amount of damage in this case reaches about KRW 82 million, the amount of damage in this case reaches about KRW 82 million, or was not recovered from the victim until the trial, and there are no special circumstances to change the sentence of the court below at the time of the judgment of the court below, and the Defendant’s age, character, conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, background, means, means, method, criminal records, etc., and the circumstances before and after the crime are considered to be too inappropriate or unreasonable.

Therefore, each of the above unfair sentencing arguments by the defendant, his defense counsel, and prosecutor is rejected.

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