2. It is desirable to respect the determination of sentencing in our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that, even if the amount acquired by the crime of this case exceeds KRW 70,000,000, the damage still remains not completely recovered, and the fact that the victim wants to punish the defendant is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant used an active means of deception to obtain money from the victim.

Considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant deposits a total of KRW 35 million on three occasions for the victim, and the defendant pays the remainder of the damage, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment in addition to the punishment imposed once by committing another type of crime, etc., the sentencing of the court of original judgment is within the reasonable scope of its discretion.

In addition, there is no change in sentencing conditions that can be newly considered in the trial.

Therefore, it is not recognized that the sentence of the judgment below is too unfasible because it is too unfasible.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.