A. The sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant, in collusion with an employee of the Telecommunications Finance Fraud Group, was involved in the fraud by delivering the money remitted from the victims of the fraud to the said employee, and as a result, the crime is not likely to be committed in light of the content and consequence of the crime, the social harm of the Telecommunications Finance Fraud, and the necessity of Section 1.

In addition, the defendant is likely to commit each of the crimes of this case during the period of probation without being subject to criminal punishment two times or more of the same crimes.

On the other hand, however, the defendant shows the attitude of reflecting all his mistake, and the defendant does not seem to have obtained economic benefits due to each of the crimes in this case.

In addition, it seems that the defendant did not lead the crime of telephone financing fraud, but experienced economic difficulties, which led to each of the crimes in this case.

Considering the circumstances unfavorable or favorable to the defendant as above, the circumstances after the crime, the age of the defendant, sexual conduct, environment, and all other conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, the punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant does not seem to be too heavy or unreasonable since the punishment imposed by the court below is within the proper scope of sentencing discretion, and thus, each of the above arguments by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit.

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