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

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We also examine each of the allegation of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor.

All of the crimes of this case are recognized by the defendant, and they are against depth, and each crime of this case is deemed to have been committed to raise living expenses, and some victims do not want punishment against the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant has repeatedly committed a similar type of crime, which has been punished twice for larceny, once for fraud, and once for the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, that there are considerable damages due to each of the crimes of this case, but the fact that most victims have failed to get used and have failed to recover from damage is unfavorable.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and all the conditions of the sentencing specified in the instant case’s records and pleadings, there is no circumstance that the lower court’s sentence is deemed adequate and that the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or is unreasonable to maintain it as it is.

Therefore, it is unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable as the defendant asserts.

The defendant and prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit, as alleged by the prosecutor. Thus, each of the defendant and prosecutor's arguments of unfair sentencing are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.