A. The lower court’s sentence that sentenced six months of imprisonment is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the Defendant, a defense counsel, led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime, etc.

B. In light of the fact that the crime of this case by the prosecutor (unfairness) was committed with the victim with low intellectual ability and by deceiving the property by taking advantage of the trust relationship with the victim, and that the defendant did not endeavor to recover the damage and did not agree with the victim, the above punishment of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case, which is short of intellectual ability, is not the crime committed by deceiving the victim, using the trust relationship with the victim, which is bad in quality, the defendant did not make efforts to recover damage and did not agree with the victim. In light of the level of the victim's income, there are only the factors of sentencing unfavorable to the defendant and the defendant's prior criminal records once a fine of different types, such as the fact that the defendant led to the crime of this case, including the factors favorable to the defendant, the motive and background leading up to the crime of this case, the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, and other various matters provided in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are the conditions of sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, etc., as well as the recommended range according to the sentencing guidelines for the fraud crime of this case, each of the above arguments are without merit.

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