A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. The instant crime requires strict punishment against the Defendant, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant used the instant crime as a opening business fund, and then by deceiving the victim as if it were to change, and the nature of the crime is not good; and (b) the Defendant did not agree with the victim until the trial is held; and (c) the Defendant did not agree with the victim.

However, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original court, and the sentencing of the original court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, because the defendant is divided into his own mistake, that the defendant does not have the same criminal record, and that there is no change in the conditions

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed appropriate, and it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too heavy or unfasible. Thus, the above argument by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is without merit.

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, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That it is evident that the "Article 347(1)" was omitted from the next “Article 347(1) of the judgment of the court below,” and therefore, the judgment of the court below is added to it in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.