2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment against each Defendant, taking into account (i) the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, (ii) the Defendant’s mistake is recognized, (iii) the victim G does not want the Defendant’s punishment; (iv) the crime of fraud was committed during the same repeated offense period as indicated in the judgment in the lower court’s judgment, from October 26, 2015 to November 26, 2015, and (iii) the Defendant was committed during the same criminal period as indicated in the previous offense in the judgment of the lower court; (iv) the Defendant has the history of having been punished several times of fraud as well as that of other victims;

In addition to the above sentencing conditions, even when comprehensively considering all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion. There is no change in special circumstances that can be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unbrupted and unfair.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.