A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (six months of imprisonment) by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant: (a) committed the instant crime against multiple victims; (b) the frequency of the commission of the crime; (c) the considerable amount of damage from occupational embezzlement; (d) the commission of the crime was extremely poor; and (e) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes to raise money for gambling; (c) the motive of the crime was highly likely to be criticized; (d) the victim did not recover from damage; and (e) the fact that the agreement with the victims was not reached is disadvantageous to

On the other hand, the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000 due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2011, and the fact that there is no other force on criminal punishment is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the judgment of the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

In addition, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in circumstances that it is unreasonable to maintain the sentencing of the lower court in the

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

3. 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.