2. The crime of this case is a case where the defendant, in sum, 18,439,430 won from the victim C, and the sum of 15,000,000 won from the victim F, and the defendant committed the crime of this case even though he had been punished several times due to the same kind of crime, it is recognized that the defendant committed the crime of this case.

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects; (b) the victims do not want the punishment of the Defendant; and (c) the victims are making efforts to recover from damage by periodically remitting a certain amount to the victims even after the agreement with the victims; (b) the instant crime was sentenced on March 13, 2013; and (c) the crime of this case was committed on March 21, 2013; and (d) the punishment should be determined at the same time in consideration of the case and equity as stated in the judgment of the lower court and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act; and (c) the fact that the Defendant has a family member to support the Defendant is considered as favorable to the Defendant; and (d) there is no special circumstance or circumstance newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment; (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, means and method of the crime; and (d) the circumstances after the crime, etc.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the application of statutes of the judgment below

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the term “the choice of imprisonment” in the relevant criminal facts is clear that it is an error of “the choice of imprisonment” under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and “the choice of imprisonment.”