A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The criminal act of licensing fraud committed against many and unspecified persons in a planned and systematic manner needs to be strictly punished for the defendant who served as a "measures for collecting cash" in that the relevant social harm is great.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant include: (a) the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and went against the defendant; (b) the criminal of this case was committed in an attempted crime after the arrest of the defendant; and (c) the fact that the defendant seems to have actively cooperated in the investigation after the arrest of the investigation agency; and (d) the defendant

In full view of the following facts: (a) there is no change of circumstances that may change the sentence of the court below when the above circumstances were different; and (b) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, the circumstances and consequence of the instant crime; and (c) the conditions of all the sentencing as indicated in the records and theories of changes, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below was too heavy or unhued to the extent of reasonable discretion.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.