A. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the Defendant, the lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of all of the sentencing conditions of the Prosecutor’s instant case, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant does not have much amount obtained by deceit due to the instant fraud crime, and that he reflects it.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions, including the circumstances leading to the instant crime, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., as well as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime repeatedly immediately after having been sentenced to a punishment for the same kind of crime, there are many criminal offenses committed by the Defendant; the Defendant did not recover any particular damage and did not agree with the victims until the Defendant was in the trial; and there is no change in circumstances that could change the circumstances between the lower court and the punishment. It cannot be deemed that the punishment determined by the lower court is adequate, too

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