2. Determination: (1) The fact that the offense is inferior, such as deceiving six victims over a period of four months and deceiving 18 million won in sum as a down payment, is unfavorable.

② However, there was no record of criminal punishment in addition to the Defendant’s suspension of indictment for larceny in 2013, and the Defendant recognized the instant crime, and the Defendant repaid the victim C [N], I, F, B, and G totaling KRW 15 million (data submitted on the page of the trial record and January 4, 2017) to the victim H was not submitted.

In full view of the following circumstances: (a) considerable portion of the amount of damage to the instant crime was repaid; (b) the victim F and G expressed their intent not to want the Defendant’s punishment (the trial record 32,33 pages); and (c) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing, such as the background, means, results, and the circumstances after the instant crime, the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed to be unfair as it is too unfeasible.

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). [The part of the judgment of the court below’s judgment that “the deception is changed in the annual contract amount to lease a restaurant store in Seoul E-Seoul building” in [Attachment 6] No. 6 (victim B] of the column for the fraud method” is a clerical error in “the purchase of a down payment to lease a store in Gangnam-gu Seoul building (Evidence No. 236, 249 pages of evidence record).” It is corrected in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure