A. In light of the fact that the Defendant, who had been punished 20 times again due to the crimes under the same law as the instant case by the public prosecutor, committed each of the instant crimes under the same law against many victims, and the damage therefrom was not completely recovered, the lower court’s imprisonment (eight months) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. The above punishment of the court below is too unreasonable in light of not only the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case and also the fact that there are circumstances to take into account the circumstances leading to the crime.

2. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court’s sentence appears to have been determined by fully taking account of the aforementioned circumstances asserted by the prosecutor and the Defendant, and there is no special change in circumstances that could change the lower court’s sentence in the trial, as well as the overall conditions of sentencing indicated in the records of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, health, character and environment, character and environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence

It is not likely that it is improper or uneasible.

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