A. The Prosecutor’s sentence (one year and two months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. We examine both the judgment and the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing.

The Defendant recognized the instant crime and runs against the Defendant.

The period of the defendant's participation in the crime of this case is three days and shorter.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the defendant seems to have been aware of the illegality of the crime of this case before entering Korea, and the nature of the crime is not good.

The so-called “wishing” crime, such as the instant crime, is committed in a systematic, planned, and intelligent manner, and is highly harmful to society, and as it is difficult to arrest the entire organization, it is necessary to severely punish even if only part of the crime is involved.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, character and conduct, motive for committing an offense, and circumstances before and after the commission of the offense, there are no circumstances that the lower court’s sentence is appropriate, and that it is deemed that the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or that it is unreasonable to maintain such judgment.

Therefore, as the prosecutor asserts that the sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

However, the prosecutor and the defendant's above assertion are without merit, since they cannot be deemed improper because they are too large as alleged by the defendant.

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