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

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination of the instant crime: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months on February 21, 2013 and on May 30, 2014; (b) the Defendant was released on May 30, 2014, for the following reasons: (c) the quality of the instant crime is not good in light of the substance and substance of the instant crime; (d) the Defendant was not prepared from the

8. 22. After the expiration of the parole period, the crime of this case was committed without referring to a person who was committed during the period of repeated crime and at the same time, is disadvantageous.

On the other hand, there are more favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant properly recognizes his mistake and reflects it, that part of the amount acquired by the defendant is returned to the victim, that the defendant has no record of being punished for the same crime, and that the defendant is placed in the place where he should support the elderly with poor health status.

In addition, in full view of the circumstances of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc., as well as the application of sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Committee, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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.