A. The lower court’s sentencing (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. The judgment is based on the following: (a) the Defendant had been punished twice by a fine due to the same kind of crime; (b) the Defendant purchased a vehicle through an installment loan for the purpose of financing money, and immediately sold it to a third party; and (c) the Defendant did not agree with the victim until the trial was the first instance; and (d) the Defendant did not recover from the damage.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed to be reasonable, and it is not deemed to be too heavy or too unreasonable, and thus, the defendant and prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit. The defendant and prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing are without merit.

3. In conclusion, each of the instant appeals 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.