2. The crime of this case, based on the judgment, is deemed to have committed the crime of this case by deceiving the victim and defrauding the victim of KRW 18,50,00,00, which is disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the fact that in light of the circumstances and contents of the crime, the criminal liability is heavy, the defendant was not agreed with the victim, and the victim wanted to punish the defendant.

However, it seems reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in our Criminal Procedure Act, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court’s unfavorable circumstances against the recognized Defendant do not constitute a change in circumstances that could change the type of punishment of the lower court after the pronouncement of the lower judgment, and the Defendant’s age, the Defendant’s environment, etc. did not appear to be clearly related to the Defendant’s social relation, such as the fact that the Defendant’s family members, etc. have no record of crime, and the Defendant’s family members wished to keep the Defendant’s wife from the first instance court. It appears that there was no change in the conditions of sentencing in comparison with the first instance court’s judgment, and that there was no change in the conditions that could change the sentence of the lower court’s age, the Defendant’s environment, etc.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.