A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

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

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following facts are considered: (a) the Defendant’s health team; (b) each of the instant crimes is highly harmful to an unspecified number of individuals; (c) the commission of a crime is organized and planned; (d) the commission of a part of the instant crime requires strict punishment; (c) four victims of the instant crime; and (d) the sum of money transferred to the account designated by the Defendant from G to the account designated by the singing Organization; and (d) the sum of money transferred by the Defendant to the account designated by the singing Organization upon obtaining from G reaches 48.2 million won; and (d) the Defendant appears to have recognized the instant crime and reflected against the Defendant; and (e) the fact that there is no specific criminal history other than the punishment imposed once on the Defendant due to the instant crime; and (e) the lower court’s punishment is deemed to have been performed more favorable to the Defendant; and (e) there is no special reason to view that there is no special change in the sentencing conditions and the Defendant’s age, motive and scope of the instant crime, and circumstances after the Defendant’s oral and circumstances.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.