All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment (3 million won) is too unreasonable.

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

2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, even if this court did not submit new data on sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and even if all the grounds for sentencing specified in the argument of the instant case are comprehensive, the sentencing of the lower court is too heavy or is so unflued so far as it is so unreasonable that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion

It does not appear.

3. In conclusion, since all appeals filed by Defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, they are all dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure: Provided, That the application of the court below’s ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure shall be corrected as follows: “Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)2 of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act” to “Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)2 of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (Amended by Act No. 13069, Jan. 20, 2015).”