2. The fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected each of the instant crimes at the latest, and that it is the primary offender is favorable.

On the other hand, the fact that the amount acquired by the defendant from the victims reaches about KRW 190 million in total, and that the damage is considerable, and that the defendant did not receive a letter from the victims is disadvantageous.

In full view of the above circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, including the circumstances after the crime, and the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court of first instance, and where the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate, and it is not deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the defendant is too heavy or unab

3. As such, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.