2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court of the judgment, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). Although the amount acquired by the Defendant is about KRW 37 million, in light of the method of deceiving the victims or the content of false language, and the frequency of fraud, each of the crimes of this case is deemed not good, each of the crimes of this case should be taken into account at the same time as the judgment became final and conclusive, the equity should be considered with the case where the judgment was received at the same time as the judgment became final, the agreement with the victim F, the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim F, and there is no new change in circumstances that the lower court would change the sentence in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc. as shown in such circumstances, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be unfair due to excessive unhurding.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.