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 court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant is against the recognition of all each of the instant crimes; each of the instant crimes is in a concurrent crime relationship between the crime of fraud and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act as stated in the judgment of the lower court where each of the instant crimes became final and conclusive; thus, the equity should be taken into account with the case where a judgment is rendered; and 25 million won out of the defrauded money is repaid.

However, although each of the crimes of this case did not have obtained consent from the wife, the defendant will put up the wife as the surety for the victim.

It is the fact that the crime is not good in light of the method of crime, the amount of damage, etc., and the fact that the victim wants to punish the defendant is disadvantageous.

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.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed reasonable, and the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or less than the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

All of the arguments that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor are unfair are dismissed.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the judgment of the court below).