A. The sentence of one-year imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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

2. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant, recognizing the facts charged of the instant case, and closely reflects his mistake; and (b) the Defendant appears to have been arrested at the scene of the instant crime, and the amount of damage would have been recovered.

On the other hand, the crime of Bosing, like the instant case, is very poor in the number of crimes, and there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant who participated in the crime as well as social harm caused thereby, and the Defendant plays a key role in completing the crime of Bosing in this case as the so-called “collection and Delivery Obligations”. The degree of participation in the crime was significant, and the Defendant did not agree with the victim until the trial was held (the amount of damage in this case was returned to the victim, but it is not by the Defendant’s effort to pay damages, as seen earlier). The Defendant has a history of criminal punishment several times, including the same kind of fraud and the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, etc., that is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

Furthermore, considering the following facts: (a) there is no special change in circumstances to change the sentence of the lower court after the pronouncement of the lower judgment; and (b) taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and various conditions of sentencing as stated in the present case’s pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, circumstances, family relationship, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.