All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant was engaged in the business with the victim E, the victim E was well aware of all the circumstances and did not belong to the victim E, and did not have any intention.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The defendant asserts that the amount of the punishment of the court below (four years of imprisonment with prison labor) is unfair because it is too unreasonable for the defendant and the prosecutor, and the prosecutor asserts that the amount of the punishment is unfair because it is too uneasible. The prosecutor asserts that the amount of the punishment is unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances are sufficiently acceptable: (a) the lower court’s judgment recognized as follows: (b) whether the Defendant was aware of the intent to acquire the victim E; and (c) the same is sufficiently acceptable.

Especially, the defendant set the number of days to a third party.

On the other hand, the fact that the victim E received money under his/her name and did not use the money to pay the money alone, and used it for any other purpose, and continued to receive money without informing the victim E of such fact.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, the Defendant was the victim E and had the intent to have the victim E.

may be appointed by a person.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is justified, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to each of the unfair arguments of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared to those of the court below because new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the appellate court.

In full view of all the sentencing factors revealed in the public trial, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy to the extent that it exceeded the reasonable discretion of the court.

It does not seem that it does not seem too easily.

It does not appear.