2. In light of the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, the lower court determined a sentence against the Defendant by taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime on 85 occasions under the same law; (b) even during the investigation or trial; (c) the Defendant continued to have committed the instant crime and the quality of such crime is not good; and (d) the Defendant appears not to have recovered from the victims; (b) the Defendant, under favorable circumstances, led to the confession of the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant did not have any punishment exceeding the fine; and (d) the Defendant’s punishment was not imposed; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sex, career, home environment, motive, means, and circumstances after the commission of the crime.

As above, the sentencing of the court below appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope by fully taking into account the above conditions of the sentencing, and there is no change in circumstances that make it difficult to assess differently from the sentencing conditions of the court below up to the appellate court. Thus, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too heavy or unreasonable because it is too low.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, since each appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.