Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

except that this judgment.

Defendant

A: The sentence imposed by the court below on Defendant A (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

A prosecutor: In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts as to Defendant B, the court below found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds as stated in its holding. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

Defendant

On the basis of the statutory penalty, the sentencing of A is determined within reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors on sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the Defendant’s content of the instant deception, the degree of property damage inflicted on the victim, etc., the Defendant’s liability for the crime is somewhat minor.

However, the defendant made efforts to recover damage, such as transferring the victim the H's representative director to the victim, and the victim paid additional damage after the decision of the court below.