All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant is only a person who misleads the victim of the fact that C had delivered one word to the victim.

There is no fact that there is a division between C and defrauded.

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

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the Defendant’s father is also the person in charge of the division.

In other words, it is false that it is possible to have a job employed through C.

It is sufficiently known that C's father was not the person in charge of the department in light of the defendant's military life experience.

In full view of the facts that C received KRW 30 million from E, and the Defendant received KRW 5 million from C, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake as alleged by the Defendant, in light of the following: (a) although the Defendant merely borrowed money; (b) there is no certificate of loan; (c) there was no agreement on the due date or interest; and (d) the Defendant did not fully pay the money until he was investigated by the prosecution; and (b) if the Defendant returned the money of E to C after the date when the case was closed, he would return the money of E to C; and (c) the Defendant should be deemed to have received the money of acquiring the crime of this case, not to have borrowed money separately from C, in light of the circumstance that the Defendant sent text messages, but to have received the money of defraudation

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. We also examine both the prosecutor and the defendant's respective arguments about unfair sentencing and the defendant's respective arguments about unfair sentencing.

The court below held that the crime of this case was committed by deceiving the defendant as if the defendant had employed the victim in the military unit and thereby committing the crime of this case was committed with employment fraud of 30 million won.