A. The lower court’s punishment (excluding the crime No. 2221 of the 2017 order order, excluding the crime No. 1 of the 2221 order): Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and the crime No. 2221 of the 201 order order: imprisonment with prison labor for four months) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the crime is recognized and contradictory to the Supreme Court Decision 201Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015; the victim R and U partially repaid the amount of KRW 50,000,000, and the said victims sought a preference against the Defendant is a favorable

However, the Defendant continued to commit the instant fraud even when he/she was detained on the charge of fraud and was detained on the charge of committing the instant crime. In particular, it is disadvantageous that the Defendant was sentenced to a one-year suspended sentence of imprisonment for the same kind of crime and was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence (from September 4, 2015 to September 3, 2017) and was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence, and the possibility of criticism and the risk of repeating the crime is high, the number of victims is not large, and the victim R and most victims other than U are not recovered from damage.

The court below appears to have determined the punishment in consideration of the above circumstances, and there is no change in circumstances that could change the punishment of the court below.

Rather, the victim I, H, etc. wanted to be punished for the defendant in the past in the trial, and the circumstances alleged by the defendant in the trial and the reference materials additionally submitted by the defendant are already reflected in the sentencing process in the original trial in light of its contents.

In addition, the records of this case, such as the criminal history, age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions as shown in the changes.