2. We examine both the judgment and the prosecutor’s respective unfair claims for sentencing.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The fact that the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and reflects the recognition of each of the instant crimes, and that there is no other criminal record except for the Defendant who was sentenced one time of a fine is favorable.

However, each of the crimes of this case was committed by the Defendant with the payment of a total of KRW 11,40,000 from the victim who was in a relationship with the Defendant as the borrowed money, and the nature of the crime is not good. The victim suffered economic difficulties due to each of the crimes of this case, and the Defendant agreed to pay 1,7120,000 won to the victim during the investigation process on August 30, 2017, and criminal conciliation was established. However, the circumstances following the crime are disadvantageous to the victim, such as failure to perform the payment in installments.

The court below determined the punishment in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that may be particularly considered in the trial.

Although the Defendant submitted a written agreement to the effect that he made a confession of the part that was partially denied when the Defendant was in the trial and the victim wanted to find the front wife, in light of the purport of the Defendant’s defense, the content of confession, and the process of agreement with the victim (the Defendant did not pay the agreed amount even though he knew of the victim’s account number after the above criminal conciliation was established, and the date of the decision of the trial was imminent, and only three million won should be paid to the victim and the remaining agreed to repay the agreed amount later, the above circumstance alone can change the sentencing of the lower court.