A. The sentence of Defendant 1’s deliberation (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b)one review type for an inspection is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. In light of the fact that the so-called Bosing crime in the board is highly harmful to society, and it is difficult to detect it, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of a repeated crime period, and the amount of the fraudulent crime committed by the Defendant who participated in the withdrawal of the criminal amounting to approximately KRW 80 million, and the Defendant was unable to recover any damage even in the amount of KRW 70 million actually withdrawn, there should be a corresponding punishment against the Defendant.

However, comprehensively taking account of the fact that the defendant repents the defendant's mistake, the fact that there is no record of the same crime, the course and degree of the defendant's participation, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the trial process of this case, such as the age, sex, family relationship, motive and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the first deliberation punishment is appropriate, and it cannot be deemed unfair or unreasonable.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the defendant and prosecutor's argument.

3. If so, 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 (Provided, That in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, each of the "proviso of Article 42" shall be corrected to delete "the proviso of Article 42" from the fourth and sixth fourth of the first instance judgment in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.