A. The punishment of the lower court (unfair imprisonment for eight months) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). New circumstances or special changes in circumstances that may be reflected in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment do not appear.

The defendants are both aware of the crimes, and they agree with many victims in the original trial.

The mother, etc. of the defendant want to be the wife.

On the other hand, the Defendant committed fraud against many and unspecified persons, which is not the nature of the crime, and such crime is also highly harmful to society, such as that the Internet electronic commerce used by many people is chilling and the increase of transaction cost for safety transactions.

The victims have not reached an agreement with all victims.

Many previous crimes have been committed, and the crime of this case has been committed again during the period of repeated crime due to the crime of this kind.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and various conditions of sentencing indicated in the pleadings and records, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or light beyond the reasonable limit of discretion.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is groundless, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.