A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.). The nature of the instant crime is not good in light of the method and frequency of the instant crime, and the period of the instant crime.

Even if considering the fact that the defendant appears to have been compensated for part of the embezzlement due to the identity guarantee insurance purchased at the time of entry, the damage of the crime of this case was large and considerable damage has not been recovered, and there was no agreement with the victims.

In addition, considering the various circumstances, including the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances determined by the court below, which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and previous conviction, the sentence imposed by the court below cannot be deemed to be too minor or unreasonable because it was done within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.