A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The judgment of the Defendant is contrary to the recognition of the instant crime.

When the defendant is arrested at the scene of crime, the amount obtained by deceit was immediately confiscated and the full amount was returned to the victim.

Defendant has no record of criminal punishment except once a fine.

However, the defendant is also in need of strict punishment in consideration of the characteristics of a systematic and decentralization crime and the seriousness of the social harm of the crime.

Although the defendant agreed with the victim in the trial in order that the injured party is the front place of the defendant, it is difficult to evaluate the existence of considerable circumstances to change the sentencing of the court below in light of equity in sentencing with the same and similar cases in this case in which the prosecutor appealed.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, health, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of an offense, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and pleadings up to the depth of the offense, such as the circumstances after the offense, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed appropriate, and it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too heavy or unfeasible.

Therefore, each of the unfair sentencing arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (as to the costs of lawsuit, the proviso of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall apply).