A. The sentence of imprisonment (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) imposed on the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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

2. The Defendant, in collusion with the assistants in name, took part in the criminal conduct of licensing several times, and misrepresented the staff of the Financial Supervisory Service as an action means, and forged and used official documents under the name of the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission.

Before the instant case, there is a record of punishment for violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

The damage was not recovered until the trial.

However, even if the Defendant committed the instant crime and was not prosecuted, it is against the wrongness.

Prior to the instant case, there is no record of being punished by a heavier punishment exceeding the fine, or of being punished by committing a crime of forging a fraud or an official document.

The lower court determined the sentence by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned various circumstances, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances leading to the instant crime.

Considering the importance of the defendant's crime in the whole crimes, the sentencing of similar cases, etc., the sentence imposed by the court of first instance appears to fall within the reasonable scope of the sentencing discretion of the court of first instance, and there are no changes in circumstances added in the trial.

It cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy or unreasonable.

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.