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

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In light of the judgment, the fact that the defendant all recognized the crime and took an attitude against the defendant, and the fact that the defendant does not have any criminal power exceeding the fine is favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant’s participation in the Defendant’s crime is not deemed to be low, by taking account of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s crime was committed in a systematic and systematic manner against many unspecified victims; (b) there is a great social harm that causes a large number of damage; (c) the Defendant received the money by deception as if the Defendant was an employee of a financial company; and (d) the amount of damage was not recovered even though the amount of damage was considerable; and (e) the amount of damage was not recovered; and (e) the court below’s punishment cannot be deemed to be excessively heavy or unreasonable, taking into account all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument are without merit.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.