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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the amount of defraudation of the instant crime reaches KRW 25 million, and that there is a large number of criminal records against the Defendant, etc. are disadvantageous circumstances.

However, there are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is against the defendant, that the defendant did not have the same criminal record, and that the defendant paid 15 million won to the victim for the recovery of damage in the first instance.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, means and consequence of committing a crime, and various sentencing conditions in the instant trial process, such as the circumstances after committing the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unfair.

We do not accept the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.