A. The sentence (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of the crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance in light of the method and frequency of the crime, the degree of damage, etc., and the fact that the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime several times, etc.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected, and that a considerable number of victims does not want the punishment of the defendant is favorable.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and other conditions of sentencing as seen in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to be too minor or unreasonable, and thus, the prosecutor and the Defendant’s assertion are without merit.

3. The conclusion is that both a prosecutor and a defendant's appeal are without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That the part of the criminal facts of the judgment of the court below "over 398 times, such as the one of the crimes Nos. 1 through 170, 172 through 364, 370 through 405, is obviously a clerical error of "39 times, such as the one of the crimes No. 1 to 170, 172 through 364, 370 through 405," and it is corrected as correcting it ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure).