A. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. We examine both the judgment and the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing.

The defendant has been in charge of receiving money in direct face-to-face face with the victim, and in the process, it is not good that the crime is committed.

The crime of this case did not properly recover damage caused by the crime of this case, and the so-called "wishing" crime was committed in an organized, planned, and intelligent manner, and social harm is very high, and even if it is not possible to arrest the entire organization, it is necessary to severely punish a part of the crime.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant shows his attitude to recognize and reflect all the crimes of this case.

The equity should be taken into account in the case of fraud that has been adjudicated at the same time with this case and judgment.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, character and conduct, motive for committing an offense, and circumstances before and after the commission of the offense, there are no circumstances that the lower court’s sentence is appropriate, and that it is deemed that the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or that it is unreasonable to maintain such judgment.

Therefore, as the prosecutor asserts that the sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

However, the prosecutor and the defendant's above assertion are without merit, since they cannot be deemed improper because they are too large as alleged by the defendant.

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 ordered as per Disposition.