A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

A. The punishment of the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine the reasoning of the judgment and the prosecutor together.

The crime of this case committed in the operation of C by deceiving victims as if the defendant had no intention or ability to pay material prices or lend bills at a discount due to the aggravation of the financial situation while operating C.

In light of the intelligence and planning of the crime of this case and its methods and contents, etc., the crime of this case is considerably poor.

The number of victims is a large number of victims and the total amount of damage is a large amount of crime liability.

The defendant has been subject to criminal punishment several times for the same crime, and in particular, the defendant has committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he/she was in the period of repeated crime due to the same crime.

Therefore, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

However, in light of the equity in sentencing with the same or similar case in favor of the defendant, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the situation after the crime, etc., it is judged that the sentence of the court below is unreasonable, considering the following: (a) the defendant has made confession of all the crimes of this case and reflects his mistake in depth; (b) the defendant has repaid most of the amount of damage in the investigative agency or the court below; and (c) the victims have not want to be punished against the defendant; and (d) the profits acquired by the defendant appears

Therefore, the above argument of the defendant is reasonable, and the prosecutor's above argument is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is justified.