A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. The lower court, on several occasions, sentenced the above sentence by taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s committed each of the instant crimes, including the fact that the Defendant had been punished for a fine and suspension of execution for the same crime, even though there were several times, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes, the number of victims, the high number of victims, the nature of the crime is not good in light of the deception method, the damage is not recovered, and the damage amount is relatively low.

In addition to the circumstances considered by the court below, the court below takes into account the fact that the damage has not been restored to the trial.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable as it is alleged by the Defendant or the prosecutor.

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