A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, etc.

B. In light of the fact that the nature of the instant crime committed by the prosecutor is not good, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. We also examine the argument of the Defendant and the prosecutor.

The fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflected against the defendant, and the fact that the defendant has a criminal record of latter concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should consider the case of concurrent crimes and equity in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act,

However, the Defendant had a record of being punished twice for a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission in Fraud, and the victims' total amount of damage is not specified as KRW 95 million, the victims' failure to agree with the victims, and even if the victim E was returned to approximately KRW 10 million from the Defendant side as the Defendant's assertion, the victims still failed to recover a considerable portion of the amount of damage, and the Defendant did not directly recover damage from the lower court to the trial.

In full view of these circumstances, Defendant’s character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, it is difficult to view that the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant and prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.