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

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is not limited to the extent of damage that the defendant acquired the pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 120 million from the victim E, and acquired the sum of KRW 72.5 million from the victim G.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was unable to recover the entire amount of damage suffered by the victims.

In addition, the defendant has already been punished for a suspended sentence due to the crime of fraud.

On the other hand, the degree of deception of the instant crime is not strong.

The extent of actual damage of the above victim seems to be smaller than the amount of fraud by paying the amount equivalent to KRW 57.5 million to the victim G.

There is no past record of the criminal defendant who has been punished in excess of probation.

In the past, the defendant has recognized all of his crimes and shown an attitude against himself.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, circumstances after the crime was committed, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, taking into account all the sentencing conditions and sentencing criteria as indicated in the instant argument.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

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.