A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. We examine the case of each of the unfair sentencing arguments by the Defendant and the prosecutor. The court below sentenced the above punishment in light of the following circumstances: (a) taking into account the following favorable circumstances: (b) the amount of fraud by each of the Defendant is a small amount; (c) the Defendant led the Defendant to multiple times during the period of repeated crime not having been released from the same crime; (d) the Defendant re-offendered several times during the period of repeated crime not having been released from the same crime; (e) the same criminal history of the Defendant was 59 times; (e) the Defendant’s imprisonment was 17 times; and (e) there was no repayment of damage.

In full view of the fact that there is no change in circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court in addition to the unfavorable circumstances taken into account by the lower court, and all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading up to the commission of the crime, means and consequence, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance in which the assessment or maintenance is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, the lower court’s sentence imposed on the Defendant cannot be too easily or unfairly unreasonable, and thus, each of the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s respective arguments for sentencing are without merit.

3. In conclusion, all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit. Thus, all appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.