A. In light of the circumstances leading up to the Defendant, the fact that the Defendant did not have the same criminal records, the Defendant’s urology is not good due to urology, etc., and the Defendant transferred and worked at the construction site of the local area to prepare agreements with the victim, etc., the lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Although the amount of damage caused by the instant fraud by the prosecutor is reasonable, in light of the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim or did not recover from damage, and that the investigation was delayed for a long time at the wind of the Defendant’s escape during the investigation, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or is so fluent that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.