A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence sentenced by the prosecutor (four months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. In full view of the favorable circumstances, including the fact that the defendant had been subject to criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case, and committed the crime during the repeated crime period, and the fact that the defendant repaid and agreed on the amount of damage to three of the five victims, and the amount of damage is a small amount, and other favorable circumstances, including the defendant's age, occupation, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the court below against the defendant seems to be within the reasonable scope of its discretion.

In addition, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in circumstances that it is unreasonable to maintain the sentencing of the lower court in the

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. 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.