A. Defendant: The sentence of the lower court (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. The fact that only a part of the defrauded was returned even though several years have elapsed since the date of the crime of defraudation of judgment, and that there was a criminal record of the same kind, etc. is disadvantageous.

However, the fact that the injured party is not subject to the punishment of the defendant, the fact that the injured party is recognized as committing the crime for the past time in the past, the fact that the depth is reflected in the crime, the balance with the case of each crime of fraud that has become final and conclusive, and the fact that the health status of the accused and his spouse is not good is more favorable.

In addition, taking into account the motive and background of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., and all the sentencing conditions as shown in the theory of changes, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is too heavy or too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. 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.