A. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. We examine both claims of the judgment.

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

The lower court, based on the favorable circumstances, determined the Defendant’s punishment in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake was recognized and reflected; and (b) the amount of damage caused by the one-time fraud was relatively small and medium amounting to KRW 467,000, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant was repeatedly punished several times of punishment; (b) the repeated offense was committed by force; (c) the repeated offense was committed by forceless fraud; and (d) the repeated offense was also committed by forceless fraud;

C. Based on the above legal principle, there is no particular change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the court below, and in light of the balance of sentencing with the same kind of crime, the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., it does not seem that the court below's punishment is too heavy or too heavy and it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, both parties’ assertion of unfair sentencing is rejected.

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