A. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the Defendant, the lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of all of the sentencing conditions of the Prosecutor’s instant case, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The fact that the defendant's mistake is divided and reflected, that the actual victim was agreed with B, that half of the amount of damage specified in the crime was repaid, that is, efforts was made to repay the remaining amount of damage, that there is a family member to support, and that the defendant's spouse wants to take a preference against the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant committed fraud, theft, and theft in a relatively long period of time through the realization of the receipt and custody of a copy of a credit card, resident registration card, and identification card from B, and committed the instant crime without being aware of the amount of damage, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the repeated crime of fraud, the Defendant agreed with B merely committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period, and the Defendant did not agree with the Hyundai Capital, AK Internet shopping mall, Nonghyup, the Agricultural Cooperative, Samsung Card, etc., which are legal victims, and not yet recovered damage to B, and other matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are the conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, are considered as inappropriate and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.