The defendant shall be 9,191,00 won, which is obtained by fraud to the applicant CZ.

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (or four years and four months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order, 40 hours of order, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, has a unique area for the determination of sentencing in the first instance court. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court as the health unit, the trial court did not submit new data on sentencing in the instant case, and when comprehensively considering the various sentencing conditions revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by being too heavy or unhued.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3. In conclusion, since the appeal filed 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, and since the application for compensation order filed by the defendant CZ, DB, and W is with merit, it is ordered to compensate the defendant by deceit pursuant to Articles 25 (1), 31 (1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Litigation, etc., and to place a provisional execution on each of the above compensation orders pursuant to Article 31 (3) of the same Act, and the application for compensation order filed by the defendant CX is not reasonable because the scope of the defendant's liability for compensation is not clear, so it is decided that the application for compensation order filed by the defendant at the trial is dismissed in accordance with Articles 32 (1) 3 and 25 (3) 3 of the same Act.