A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s lower court committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts or omitting a sentence of forfeiture of seized articles as referred to in Articles 38 through 71 as stated in the total list of seized articles, by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal doctrine, and the sentence (three and a half years of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unffortu

2. There is no evidence to prove that the seized articles as set forth in Articles 38 through 71, 38, and 31, which were recorded in the total list of seized articles, are related to each of the crimes of this case by the defendant. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on different premise is without merit.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing as seen in the instant case’s determination of the illegality of sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, the Defendant’s sentence is too heavy or is deemed unreasonable as it is frightened. Therefore, the Defendant’s and the Prosecutor’s wrongful assertion of sentencing are without merit.

4. According to the conclusion, all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act are dismissed.