2. It does not seem that new circumstances or special changes are likely to be reflected in sentencing after the decision of the lower court was rendered.

In light of the circumstances and methods, etc., each of the crimes of this case is not good, and the defendant has a history of criminal punishment close to 20 times including the fraud and three times (including the actual criminal records, one time before probation, and one time before probation), and considering the fact that each of the crimes of this case was committed during the period of repeated crimes, it is inevitable to sentence the defendant to be sentenced.

However, comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Defendant recognized each of the instant offenses, the fact that the victim was not subject to the punishment of the Defendant by agreement with the defrauded, and the fact that the amount of embezzlement is not clear, etc., given that the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, such as the amount of defraudation, the age, sexual conduct, environment, etc. of the Defendant, the lower court’s sentencing does not seem to be too somewhat somewhat somewhat somewhat somewhat somewhat less than the scope of reasonable discretion or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant is without merit, it is dismissed in entirety in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.