All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine the reasoning of the judgment and the prosecutor together.

The crime of this case requires the defendant to borrow money or supply sound equipment for various reasons from the victims.

In addition, it is disadvantageous for the defendant to be subject to criminal punishment several times, including criminal records due to the same kind of crime, because he/she has acquired money and has not been provided security service by fraud and has not paid expenses. In light of the motive and method of the crime, there are poor quality of the crime, heavy liability for the crime, most of the damage has not been recovered, and the defendant has not received money from victims, and there are records of criminal punishment for the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and the fact that part of the damage was restored is favorable.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, career, sex, environment, motive, background, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the sentencing of similar cases as indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy as the Defendant alleged, or it does not seem unfair as it is too too unfasible as alleged by the prosecutor, as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the above arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, since all appeals filed by Defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, each of them is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2020Da31599 Decided February 24, 2017). Since it is obvious that the term " February 24, 2017" in the second sentence of Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure is a clerical error in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment.