All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The lower court’s sentence (2.00,000 won) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

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

2. The crime of this case is deemed to be disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim and defrauds the victim KRW 10 million from the victim, in light of the method of crime and the amount of fraud, the responsibility for the crime is grave, and that the defendant was not agreed with the victim, etc.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant are also recognized, such as the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case, and the defendant reflects the mistake, and that there is no particular criminal history except that sentenced to a fine on around 1994, and that the defendant is in a situation where the health of the defendant is extremely poor due to high blood pressure, ventilation, etc. and is in difficult economicly.

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. as well as the court below’s sentencing is appropriate, and it is not acknowledged that the Defendant’s punishment is too heavy as alleged by the Defendant, or that it is unfair because it is too unfasible as the

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is justified.