A. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed 55 times against many unspecified persons, which is highly likely to be subject to criticism, continued to commit a crime even while being tried for the same kind of crime, and that the damage was not recovered at all, the Defendant’s imprisonment (4 months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed all of the instant crimes, and there is a reason to take into account the circumstances leading to the commission of the instant crimes, and that the amount of fraud is a relatively small amount, and the equity with the case where the judgment was rendered at the same time as the judgment of the lower court became final and conclusive, the above punishment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court’s sentence appears to have been determined by fully taking account of the aforementioned circumstances asserted by the prosecutor and the Defendant, and there is no special change in circumstances that could change the lower court’s sentence in the trial, as well as the overall conditions of sentencing indicated in the records of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, health, character and environment, character and environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence

It is not likely that it is improper or uneasible.

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