2. The crime of this case is deemed to have been committed by the defendant by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim with an amount equivalent to KRW 29 million under the pretext of the loan, and the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that in light of the content of the crime and the amount of defraudation, the liability for such crime is grave.

However, it is reasonable to respect the defendant's confession of the crime of this case and reflects the defendant's mistake in depth, it is necessary to consider equity with the case where the defendant received a judgment together with the crime of fraud for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the defendant agreed to the defendant smoothly with the victim and the victim wanted to take the preference against the defendant. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct supervision, has the unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The unfavorable circumstances against the recognized defendant do not constitute a special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, and it does not seem unfair if the defendant's punishment is too unfair.

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.