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

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

2. The Defendant, while being aware that he would be used in the crime of telephone financial fraud in collusion with a member of the staff in full name, has kept or forwarded 12 physical cards by delivery and shared an important role in each fraud act as a liability to withdraw the money obtained by deception. The content and result of the crime, and the social harm of telephone financial fraud, etc. are not provided against the liability for the crime in light of the contents and result of the crime.

In addition, the damage caused by the instant fraudulent act has not yet been recovered until now.

On the other hand, however, the defendant shows an attitude against the defendant's wrongness, and the economic benefits actually acquired by the defendant in this case are not significant.

In addition, there is no record of criminal punishment for a defendant.

Considering the above circumstances unfavorable or favorable to the defendant, and the age, sex, environment, and all other conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, the sentence of the court below does not seem to be too heavy or unreasonable because it is within the proper scope of the sentencing discretion.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

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