All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the grounds for appeal by both parties, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The following are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized all of each of the instant crimes and reflects them; (b) there was no record of punishment exceeding the amount of punishment and fines punished for the same kind of crime until now; and (c) some victims have agreed with each other, and the victims do not want the punishment of the Defendant.

However, since each of the crimes of this case is so-called "singishing crime," which is a so-called "singishing crime," which is a planned and organized crime against many and unspecified persons, and has a high degree of social harm, such as impairing trust among members of society, the defendant involved in such crime requires strict punishment, and there was no smooth agreement with some victims or a full recovery of damage for victims, and some victims want to punish the defendant, and there was a large amount of the total amount of fraud by each of the crimes of this case, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and various sentencing factors revealed in the course of the pleadings of this case including various circumstances considered in the sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing is too somewhat weak or too poor to the extent that the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.