Judgment

The crime of this case is recognized as disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant, while serving as a responsibility for delivering the staff to the scam criminal investigation staff, acquired a total of 7,699,00 won from two victims in light of the circumstances of the crime and the details of the crime, such as the crime, the fact that the criminal liability is heavy, and that the defendant has not paid any effort to recover the victims' damage, etc.

However, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in our Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct supervision, where the first instance court has no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court and the first instance court does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The unfavorable circumstances against the recognized defendant do not constitute a change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court after the sentence of the lower court, and it does not constitute a change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court after the sentence of the lower court, and it does not seem unfair because the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too unfeasible, considering all other circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character, environment, etc.

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