2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance 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, etc.). The Defendant acquired financial benefits equivalent to KRW 29,050,000 from the injured party, thereby not completely recovering damage until now.

However, in the process of executing the instant construction project, the financial conditions were omitted due to the dispute over construction cost with the original contractor, but the desire to complete the construction project was caused to commit the instant crime, and there are circumstances to consider the circumstances.

The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal are already considered in the sentencing process of the court below, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, health status (as stated in the deliberation of the lower court and the lower court; (b) family relationship; (c) criminal records; (d) the background leading to the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, etc., as indicated in the arguments in the deliberation of the lower court and the lower court, the lower court’s punishment may not be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion; or (d) it is unfair due to excessive

3. According to the 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.