All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine both the judgment and the prosecutor’s unfair claims for sentencing.

The lower court seems to have sentenced the Defendant to the punishment by taking into account the circumstances, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s consent with the victim of the 2016 Highest 483 Incident did not want the punishment of the Defendant; (b) the victim of the 2016 Highest 623 Incident deposited the amount of fraud (10 million won) for the victim of the 623 Incident; (c) the Defendant confessions all the crimes of this case; and (d) there was no criminal conviction other than the one-time fine; (b) the Defendant deceivings the victims in the occupational trust relationship and embezzleds or embezzleds large amounts of money under the pretext of loans by deceiving them; (c) the majority of the victims; and (d) the amount of un recovered damage exceeds 60 million won even after the lapse of one year from the instant crime; and (d) the victim JB Capital Co., Ltd. of the 2016 Highest size of damage wishes to punish the Defendant.

When comprehensively considering the motive, circumstance, result, the circumstances after the crime, the defendant's age, sexual conduct, record of punishment, etc. in the trial of the political party, as well as the matters under the conditions of sentencing, including the punishment, the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or that the judgment of the court below is unfair.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair.

3. In conclusion, since all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, they are all dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, since the "2016 order order 20310" of the 3rd order of the judgment below is obvious as the "2016 order order 2031" of the 6th order of the judgment below is a clerical error.