All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

The defendant is the 1,066,666 won, which is the applicant for compensation, to the BF.

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (the punishment Nos. 3, 5, and 9 in the original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and the remaining crimes in the original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for two years) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant are that the Defendant recognized all facts charged and reflected against the Defendant’s judgment on the grounds of appeal, and that the Defendant repaid the amount of damage to the defrauded M and agreed to do so are favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant has been punished with punishment due to fraud, unauthorized driving, etc., and in particular, the crime of fraud and unauthorized driving of this case was committed several times during the period of repeated crime due to fraud and unauthorized driving, and even though the amount of damage caused by fraud is not much, the remaining victims excluding victim M did not completely recover from damage. The defendant is also under detention even before being detained by the court below, and there is a risk of recidivism by causing injury and assault to the victim Y as well as the fraud.

In addition, taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., and comprehensively taking into account the fact that there is no change in circumstances that may be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial, it does not seem that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. According to the records of this case as to the application for compensation at the trial of the party, the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim AJ and defrauds 3.2 million won, the defendant died after the defendant's fraudulent act, and the applicant for compensation is a co-inheritors of the AJ, and therefore, the application for compensation at the trial of the party is justified.

Therefore, the amount of compensation order against the applicant for compensation is 3.2 million won, which is the amount of damage of the AJ.