All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. The Defendant’s crime of this case, i.e., the method of committing the crime of this case was organized, planned, intelligent, and the result also requires strict punishment in a significant point of view, which is a crime of taking money into account the method of “ Bosing,” which assumes the name of a financial institution, etc. for an unspecified number of unspecified victims. In particular, the so-called “thievesing,” such as this case, is mainly subject to the elderly victims who fall short of the rily decentralization, and is highly disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as the theft of cash by intrusion upon their residence, etc.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant are also recognized, such as the fact that the defendant made a confession of the crime of this case, and that the defendant repaid 6.5 million won to the victim C, and that the victim E returned 16.9 million won to the victim E and thus the damage has been recovered considerably, and that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment.

On the other hand, in our criminal litigation law taking the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists an area unique to the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), and the unfavorable or favorable circumstances against the recognized accused do not constitute a special change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the lower court after the sentence of the lower court.

In addition, the sentencing of the court below against the defendant is the sum of discretion, considering the overall circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, and environment.