Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and eight months.

A. The punishment of Defendant A (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year) with each of the first and second instances against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence sentenced to the first instance trial against the Defendants by the prosecutor (one year of imprisonment in case of Defendant A, ten months of imprisonment in case of Defendant N, two years of suspended execution in case of imprisonment in case of Defendant A) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal against Defendant A, the judgment of the court below was rendered to Defendant A, and the judgment of the court below was rendered to Defendant A, and each appeal is filed against Defendant A, and the prosecutor also filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, and this court decided to concurrently examine each of the above appeal cases. Since each of the offenses against Defendant A’s first and second decisions on the judgment of the court of first instance is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, each of the above judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. Although there are extenuating circumstances, such as that Defendant N’s judgment on the prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing with Defendant N on the crime of fraud reaches KRW 16.6 million out of the amount obtained by defraudation, and that Defendant N did not take any measures to recover particular damage up to the trial. However, Defendant N acknowledges and reflects all of the mistakes in the trial. Defendant N is the person who led the instant crime of fraud, along with favorable circumstances, such as Defendant N’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, as well as all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the first sentence imposed on Defendant N is too unjustifiable and unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing against Defendant N is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the Prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant N is without merit, and thus, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.