A. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

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

2. The fact that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime was not completely recovered in the name of KRW 80 million is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant is recognized as committing the crime, and the victim purchased the apartment of this case in the auction procedure, and the amount of dividends to the victim appropriated for the purchase price, the actual damage suffered by the victim does not significantly exceed the above amount of damage, the defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the same criminal record or fine, and the defendant's health status is not good is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the motive and background of the commission of the crime including the above circumstances, the method and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s environment, health conditions, and criminal records, and the scope of the recommended punishment in the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court [the types of fraud crimes, general fraud, Type 1 (less than KRW 100 million), basic area, and month - June 1], the sentence of the lower court is within the reasonable scope.

Therefore, it is difficult to view it as unfair because it is too heavy or unfasible.

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