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

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

2. Determination

A. The fact that the amount of defraudation caused by the instant crime is not certain, and that it is not agreed with the victim is disadvantageous to the defendant.

B. Meanwhile, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime when the Defendant was in the trial; (b) the Defendant set up a collateral on the land owned by the Defendant in order to secure the victim’s repayment of damages; (c) the victim first demanded a false graduation; (d) the Defendant has considerable responsibility for the occurrence of the instant crime; (c) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment heavier than that of the same crime; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and the content of the instant crime; and (e) other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed appropriate; and (e)

C. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

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