2. It is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and direct principle, in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the circumstances and methods of each of the instant crimes, etc., the nature of the crime is not good; the Defendant has a history of criminal punishment for fraud and embezzlement before each of the instant crimes; and the Defendant has not yet been punished from the victims of each of the instant crimes;

However, it is also recognized that the defendant has an attitude against each of the crimes in this case, such as recognizing that the defendant has committed each of the crimes in this case, and that the defendant partially repaid the victim B.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and the trial process, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or is too uneasible and unfair.

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