All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: As to each of the judgment below's unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment), the defendant asserts that the defendant is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, as stated in the grounds for sentencing, determined the sentence by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing, as well as taking into account the records of the instant case and various sentencing conditions against the Defendant in the process of trial, does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Meanwhile, while there is a change in the circumstance that the defendant recognized the crime of fraud aiding and abetting which was denied by the court below for the first time, it is difficult to view that there is a change in the sentencing condition to the extent that it is unreasonable to maintain the sentence of the court below solely by changing the above circumstances in light of the circumstance leading to the above crime, the method of crime and the degree of damage inflicted on the victim, etc.

Considering this, the defendant and the prosecutor claim as grounds for appeal.