2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The crime of this case is a bad thing for the Defendant to obtain a large amount of loans from financial institutions within a short period of time by forging several lessees’ names in the short term, making a false lease agreement under which the Defendant has reduced the security value of the real estate owned by himself/herself by forging the false lease agreement under the name of several lessees.

The defendant did not comply with summons among the trials of the court below and did not sleep for a long time.

However, the defendants recognize all of their crimes and oppose themselves.

The Defendant agreed smoothly with the victims.

There shall be no criminal records exceeding fines for defendants.

The lower court, taking into account all these circumstances, determined the sentence as above.

In light of the above sentencing conditions, there is no particular change in the defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relations, circumstances after the crime, and other various sentencing grounds as shown in the records and arguments, the sentencing of the court below is too unfluent and so it does not seem that the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of its discretion.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.