A. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. A favorable circumstance is that the Defendant made a confession of each of the instant crimes and reflects his/her mistake in depth, and that the Defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the fine.

On the other hand, the defendant did not make any effort to recover damage to victims of the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents until the party's trial, and did not agree with the victims of embezzlement.

In addition, given that there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, comprehensively considering various sentencing conditions that appear in the records and theories of this case, such as the background of each of the crimes in this case, the circumstances after the crime, and the Defendant’s environment, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

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