A. In light of the contents of the prosecutor’s deception, etc., the criminal intent was active, and the amount of the fraud was also large exceeding KRW 100 million, and most of them have not been repaid, the punishment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

B. The above punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case and the defendant is against the mistake while he committed the crime of this case, although he did not pay a part of the borrowed amount but is expected to pay it in the future.

2. In light of the above circumstances alleged by the prosecutor and the defendant, the court below seems to have determined the punishment by fully considering the above circumstances, and even if considering the fact that the defendant was found to have committed a crime for the first time in the trial, the damage recovery has not yet been made even if all of the facts were to be taken into account. In full view of the above circumstances and all the conditions of sentencing on the records of this case, including the defendant’s age, health, character and conduct, character and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the punishment of the court below is too

It is not likely that it is improper or uneasible.

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