A. The lower court’s sentence (ten months of imprisonment) is too unfford and unfair, considering the criminal records of the same kind and the risk of recidivism expressed in 18 times, including not only repeating the criminal act of defraudation by professional manual but also having been sentenced to five times of punishment.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed all of the instant crimes, and the Defendant’s mistake is against the depth of each of the instant crimes, and that there is a great difficulty in aquatic life with depression, fluorism, and hive disc, etc., and that some victims reached an agreement, the above sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court’s sentence appears to have been determined by fully taking account of the aforementioned circumstances asserted by the prosecutor and the Defendant, and there is no special change in circumstances that could change the lower court’s sentence in the trial, as well as the overall conditions of sentencing indicated in the records of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, health, character and environment, character and environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence

It is not likely that it is improper or uneasible.

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