2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, even though the Defendant had been punished several times of fraud, the fact that each of the crimes of this case was committed is unfavorable to the Defendant, while the Defendant acknowledges all of the charges of this case, and reflects his mistake, the victims’ revocation of all of the charges; the victim’s revocation of the complaint; the relationship between the Defendant and the victims; the relationship between the Defendant and the victims; the motive or circumstance leading to each of the crimes of this case; the Defendant’s age and circumstances leading to each of the crimes of this case; and the Defendant’s environment, etc., and thus, the lower court’s assertion that the Defendant’s punishment was too unfair cannot be considered to be justified.

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.