All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. As to the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing: crime No. 1 of the judgment below: Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months; crime No. 2 and No. 3 of the judgment: Imprisonment for 6 months), the defendant asserts that the prosecutor is too unfasible and unfair.

2. The following facts are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant’s health is not good due to the age of 66 years; (b) all of the instant crimes are properly acknowledged; and (c) the crime of Article 1 of the holding of the lower judgment is in the concurrent relationship between the crime of fraud for which the judgment became final and conclusive and the crime of Article 37 of the Criminal Act should be considered

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by deceiving the victims by deceiving them to subcontract construction work, which is not less than 27,80,000 won, and the defendant has the record of criminal punishment five times for the same crime, and in particular, on February 28, 2013, the former District Court sentenced the imprisonment of six months to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime, and did not know of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of Articles 2 and 3 of the judgment of the court below, even though he was under the suspension period of execution, and did not recover the victims from damage until the trial of the case, and it is difficult to expect the recovery of damage thereafter.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., as well as the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or is deemed unfair, and thus, the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed pursuant to 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, since it is apparent that the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor was omitted by this error in front of "3."