2. The crime of this case, based on the judgment, is found to be disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s deception by deceiving the victim G, defrauding the 22 million won, and not paying the worker H wages of 2 million won, in light of the substance of the crime, and the liability for the crime is not less light.

However, it is reasonable to respect the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime when the Defendant committed the instant crime, and agreed with the employee H in depth with the Defendant, that the Defendant agreed to pay the remaining amount of damage after paying 3 million won to the victim G in installments, that the Defendant has no record of the same kind of crime, that our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct supervision, has a unique area for sentencing determination, and that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the first instance court sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The unfavorable circumstances against the Defendant, which was recognized earlier, do not constitute a change of special circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court after the pronouncement of the lower court, and that the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., and all other circumstances serving as the conditions for the sentencing specified in the instant pleading do not seem to be too unfair if the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is considered too unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. 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 without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.