A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable as the Defendant’s punishment (one year and four months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence sentenced by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the court below is too unfasible and unfair.

2. In light of the legislative intent and purpose of the Attorney-at-law Act, the lower court, under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, took into account the following factors: (a) the nature of the crime is not good; (b) the gains acquired by the crime of this case are larger than KRW 100 million; and (c) the gains acquired by the crime of this case are not returned; and (d) the Defendant did not take all profits in favor of the Defendant under the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the instant case was not typical cases due to legal disputes within the church; and (e) took into account all the factors of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, determined the Defendant’

In full view of the factors and sentencing criteria as shown in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

shall not be assessed.

B. In addition, there are no circumstances to recognize that the lower court’s maintenance of the lower court’s sentencing judgment is unfair, considering the circumstances that the lower court had already taken into account while determining the Defendant’s punishment.

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.