All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal asserts that the defendant's imprisonment (one hundred months of imprisonment, confiscation) declared by the court below is too unafford, and the prosecutor is too unafford and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case was committed by acquiring the means of access and taking advantage of Internet goods transaction, and the defendant committed the crime of this case in only two weeks after being released as bail while being tried by the court on August 2013 due to the crime of fraud, etc. in the judgment of the court below, including the crime of fraud under the same veterinary law, on or around August 2013. The defendant appears to have committed the crime of this case, even though he was placed prior to the suspension of execution due to the reason that he had the intention to continue his studies, he committed the crime of this case without being aware of it, and he committed the crime of this case during the suspension of execution.

Therefore, there is a high possibility of criticism, and because it is difficult to see that there is a high level of criticism, it is inevitable to punish a strict punishment even if the defendant is relatively old, the amount of damage caused by fraud is a small amount, and the defendant's family environment is considered.

However, it is more favorable that the defendant all committed each of the crimes in this case, and reflects the depth thereof, and the amount of damage caused by the fraud is relatively minor, and that the defendant does not want the punishment of the victim by mutual consent with the victims of the fraud.

In light of the above circumstances in light of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be adequate, too heavy, or is deemed to be unreasonable because it is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit. Thus, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not applicable.