Defendant

The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

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

Judgment

The fact that the defendant recognizes and reflects the crime, and did not play a leading role in the crime as a cash withdrawal, that there are no benefits acquired from the crime of this case, that there is no domestic criminal conviction, and that there is no social experience in student status.

On the other hand, the crime in which the defendant was involved in withdrawal is likely to be a planned and organized crime against many unspecified persons, and the withdrawal measures such as the defendant play an essential role in the completion of the crime. Therefore, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant, and the fact that the amount of damage has not been recovered and the damage has not been recovered is an unfavorable condition for the sentencing.

In full view of the aforementioned various sentencing factors, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the lower court’s sentencing conditions within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too minor or unreasonable.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.