The sentence of the court below (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

The crime of this case is committed in a way that the defendant had planned access to the victim with intellectual disability and acquired a considerable amount of money over several times as if he were married to the victim, and the nature of the crime is very poor in light of the method, frequency, and the amount of fraud, etc. of the crime, and the defendant was unable to agree with the victim and has not recovered from damage. The defendant committed the crime of this case even though he was sentenced to a fine and imprisonment for the same kind of crime.

However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant made a confession of the instant crime for the first time in the trial; (b) there is a need to consider equity in the case of the first head of the judgment in the original judgment; (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct; (d) environment; (e) motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct; (e) motive for the crime; and (e) circumstances after the crime; and (g) the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission; (e) fraud group; (g) general fraud; (e) special person without any penalty; (g) the scope of the recommended sentence (basic area); and (g) the scope of the recommended sentence ( June to June); and

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.