2. We examine both the judgment and the prosecutor’s unfair claims for sentencing.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The so-called “Ssing” crime, such as the instant case, is a crime of deceiving many unspecified victims in a systematic and planned manner by sharing the roles of a large number of people, and the nature of the crime is not very good, and the harm and injury inflicted on the victims and society is serious; the proposal of the first instance C was caused to the instant crime even though it was difficult to readily conclude that it was an incomplete intention, and the fact that it was difficult to agree with the victim or to recover damage was disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant made a confession and reflects against the defendant when he committed the crime, there is no economic benefit from the crime of this case, and the fact that he did not have any criminal record due to the same kind of crime is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, background leading up to the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and other factors for the sentencing as indicated in the instant records and the trial process, the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed to be too weak or too unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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