A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflecteds his mistake, and the defendant is more favorable to the fact that he does not have any particular criminal history, in addition to the fine imposed twice due to the crime of double species.

On the other hand, the defendant is not guilty of the crime in light of the method and frequency of the crime such as acquiring money by deception, etc. under the pretext of attorney fees by taking advantage of the poor circumstances of the victim, and the defendant will fully repay the damaged money in the criminal conciliation procedure.

There is no agreement with the victim, and it seems that the victim did not take any particular measures to recover damage, and the victim wanted to be punished for a severe punishment.

In full view of the above favorable circumstances, the Defendant’s age, environment, sex, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances before and after committing a crime, as well as various other circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

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.