A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. It is advantageous to the fact that all of the judgment crimes are recognized and reflected in the judgment, that the victim G pays KRW 14,590,000 to the victim G in terms of fees, that there is no record of punishment for the same crime before the instant case, and that the equity should be considered with the case of judgment at the same time as the first head of the crime in the judgment below.

However, the instant crime committed the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the multiple victims, and committed embezzlement as well as embezzlement during some process, with a considerable amount of liability for the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the fraud and the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime

There is no evidence to see that there is no evidence, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

Therefore, in full view of the defendant's age, sexual conduct, health, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and theories in the above circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy or uneasible and unfair, and thus, the defendant and the prosecutor's improper argument in sentencing is without merit.

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.