A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (eight months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant (1) In fact-finding, the lower court found Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged even though it was difficult for the Defendant to make USD 2,000 in Hong Kong on the street, and there was no theft as stated in the instant facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(2) The above sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same as in the trial court, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence, the judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the public prosecutor and the Defendant seems to have reasonably decided the sentence of the lower court, taking full account of all the circumstances, including various grounds for sentencing asserted by the public prosecutor and the Defendant, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court, and taking full account of various sentencing conditions, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, background of the crime and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant 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.