All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine the reasoning of the judgment and the prosecutor together.

The crime of this case is committed by deceiving the victims and deceiving or intending to defraud the precious metal. Considering the contents of the crime, it is recognized that the defendant committed the crime of this case disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the fact that the criminal liability is heavy, the defendant has not made any effort to recover the victims' damage, and that the defendant committed the crime of this case several times of criminal history of the same crime and also committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime of the same crime.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant are also recognized, such as the defendant's confession of all the crimes of this case and reflects the mistake in depth.

On the other hand, in our criminal litigation law taking the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists an area unique to the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), and the unfavorable or favorable circumstances against the recognized accused do not constitute a special change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the lower court after the sentence of the lower court.

In addition, the court below’s sentencing takes place within the reasonable scope of discretion when considering all the circumstances forming the conditions for sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc., and it is not recognized that the court below’s punishment is too heavy as the Defendant asserts, or that it is unfair because it is too unfluent as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.