2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). It is recognized that the total sum of the amount acquired through deception by the instant crime is KRW 14 million and the name was damaged or did not reach an agreement.

However, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment so far, and the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal appear to have been considered in the sentencing process of the court below, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, economic situation, and motive for committing an offense, as shown in such circumstances and the deliberation by the lower court and the party, the sentence of the lower court is beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, or is too unjustifiable.

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.