A. The sentence of the lower court (three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. The crime of this case is not suitable to commit the crime of this case by deceiving the victim as if the defendant could dispose of a siren vehicle by deceiving the victim as if he could dispose of it.

Before committing the instant crime, the Defendant had been punished several times, including punishment for the crime of fraud, and had completed the execution of sentence due to the instant crime, and had been committed again during the period of one year.

The defendant has not made a serious effort to recover the damage of the victim.

On the other hand, the defendant shows his attitude to recognize and reflect all of his crimes.

Since the crime of this case is a crime of fraud in the judgment that became final and conclusive in three years and six months, and the latter concurrent crime of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is established, the equity should be considered in the judgment at the same time

Comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.