The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (two years of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The instant crime, based on the judgment, was committed by the Defendant while serving as a responsibility for delivering staff members of the Bosing Crime, and was committed by defrauding or defrauding 71 million won in total from six victims in light of the details of the crime, such as the background of the crime and the amount of defraudation, and the fact that the Defendant did not make any effort to recover damage, and thus, is deemed to be disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant are also recognized, such as the fact that the defendant has deeply divided his mistake.

On the other hand, under our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, where there exists a unique area of the first instance court's sentencing determination, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court's judgment, and the first instance court's sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The favorable or unfavorable circumstances against the recognized defendant do not constitute a special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the sentence of the court below was sentenced, and it does not seem that the court's punishment against the defendant is too unfavorable or too unreasonable, taking into account all the circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, and environment, etc.

3. As such, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the "victim G" of 4th 16 of the judgment below is corrected as "victim H".