A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Considering the fact that the nature of the instant crime is not very good, the Defendant again commits the instant crime during the period of repeated crime resulting from the same kind of crime even though he/she had a previous record at several times, and the amount of damage was not so significant that the Defendant did not recover or reach an agreement, strict punishment against the Defendant is required.

However, the defendant's mistake is divided, and the crime of this case is in the relation of fraud for which the judgment has become final and the concurrent crimes of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the equality in the case where the judgment is to be concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act. In addition, considering the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate, and it does not seem to be too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the judgment of the court below is corrected as adding it to it in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, since it is evident that the "the first part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act" was omitted after the second half of the judgment of the court below.