A. The sentence of two and a half years of imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. As to the argument of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor together, the crime of this case was committed by deceiving the defendant that he would rent a house to the victim, and the crime of this case was committed by deceiving the defendant as a security deposit. The nature of the crime is not good in light of the content of the crime and the amount of defraudation, etc., the defendant committed the crime of this case again during the period of the same repeated crime, and did not take any specific measures to recover damage up to the trial, and the victim wanted to commit the crime of this case, and other unfavorable circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the sentence of the court below, and there is no other change of circumstances that can be considered in sentencing after the sentence of the court below, as well as other favorable circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, family relationship, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, and thus, it is not recognized that the defendant and prosecutor's respective arguments of unfair sentencing are too heavy or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.