A. The punishment of the court below (one year and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(B) The defendant withdraws his allegation of mistake on the first trial date.

The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The lower court rendered a sentence by taking account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime; (b) the method of the instant crime; (c) the number of victims; and (d) the amount of money obtained by deception; and (c) the fact that considerable damage has not yet been recovered due to the return of vehicles, etc.; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct; (d) the details and circumstances of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the commission of the instant crime; and (e) various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, including the circumstances after the instant crime.

All the grounds for unfair sentencing asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor appear to be the circumstances in which the lower court had already taken full account of the Defendant’s punishment, and there are no circumstances to deem that the above sentencing conditions have changed, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment is reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument are without merit.

3. The appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, Article 7 of the original judgment clearly states that a clerical error is clearly written in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure shall be deemed to be “ June 1, 2013” and “ June 25, 2018” shall be deemed to be “ June 1, 2013,” and “ June 25, 2018,” respectively.