A. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) 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 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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant recognized and reflected a criminal act, voluntarily surrenders to the investigation agency, and KRW 265 million out of the amount of the instant fraudulent damage was repaid through Z.

The six victims, including the Z, including the total amount of damage, do not want to be punished by the defendant.

However, the total amount of damage caused by the fraud of this case exceeds KRW 735 million, and the amount equivalent to KRW 470 million out of the amount of damage has not yet been recovered.

(1) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant paid KRW 15 million to the appellate court in addition to the Defendant’s payment of KRW 100 million through Z at the appellate court; however, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and even if the amount of additional payment is included, damage equivalent to KRW 350 million still remains not recovered. In full view of each of the above circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant arguments and records, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed as being too heavy or unreasonable beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.