A. The sentence imposed on the Defendant by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, 80 hours of community service order, 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 court below is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s act of taking cash from the victim to deliver it to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: (b) the Defendant was committed on a systematic and systematic basis against many unspecified victims; and (c) the Defendant’s act of taking cash from the victim to deliver it to the Minister of Foreign Affairs; and (d) the Defendant’s act of taking part in the Defendant’s act is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant showed an attitude of recognizing and opposing the Defendant’s mistake; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime in an attempted attempt; (c) the period during which the Defendant participated in the instant crime was limited to a short term; and (d) the Defendant appears to have no direct profit; and (c) the Defendant does not have the same criminal power, etc.; and (d) the Defendant’s punishment power is favorable to the Defendant; and (c) the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable in light of all the sentencing conditions expressed in the instant argument, including the Defendant’

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument are 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.