All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have any deficit in the victim B, and only received a pentt gift from the victim G, and there was no theft.

In addition, there was no intention or deception to acquire prepaid money from the victim K, so there was no intention or deception.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted all of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

On the other hand, the punishment sentenced by the court below (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the lower court, which are the same as the grounds for appeal in this part.

Of the summary of evidence, the court below rejected all of the above arguments in detail on the larceny part under the fourth 14th 8th 14th th, with respect to the larceny part under the third 10th 14th th 14th st.

If the above judgment of the court below is examined closely in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just.

In so determining, contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, there were no errors by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the judgment.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. We also examine the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion on unfair sentencing.

In the case of larceny and fraud of this case, it is recognized that the damage is not limited to one panty panty and two million won, and that the defendant has no criminal record of larceny and fraud.

However, the defendant denies and does not reflect the crime by the reasoning that it is difficult for him to understand until the trial is held, and the damage recovery or agreement has already been not reached.