However, only the prosecutor filed an appeal against the conviction portion, and all the defendant and the prosecutor dismissed the prosecution, and the dismissal part of the prosecution is finalized as it is, so the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that of the lower court’s imprisonment with labor for not less than ten months, which is deemed as unreasonable.

3. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable conditions for the Defendant.

The circumstances asserted by the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal (such as violence, etc. and the period of imprisonment with prison labor has reached 15 times, and each of the instant crimes was committed during the period of repeated crime, and the remainder of the instant crimes was committed even after some of the instant crimes were prosecuted, and the victims did not receive suspicion from some victims) are deemed to have already been considered in the course of sentencing in the court below.

Taking full account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s mistake as a whole and agreed with some victims; and (b) the Defendant’s character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime; and (c) the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

4. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.