A. In light of the fact that Defendant A’s defense counsel (e.g., fraud) reflects the wrongs of Defendant A, Defendant A did not have the final and conclusive criminal intent from the beginning, Defendant E paid KRW 15 million as interest, etc. After committing each of the crimes of this case, the lower court additionally deposited KRW 15 million in the lower court, and Defendant A did not have any history of criminal punishment except for those who were sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year in August of 198 due to the crime of forging securities, etc., around 198, the lower court’s sentence of imprisonment with prison labor and two months is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that there are grounds for considering the circumstances leading to the instant crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court that sentenced the community service order for two years and one hundred and twenty hours of suspended execution in the six months of imprisonment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the motive and background of each of the crimes of this case, circumstances before and after the crime of this case, degree of damage, and other various matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are the conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant A’s character and behavior, environment, etc., all of the circumstances alleged in the grounds for appeal, the court below’s punishment is not determined to be unfair, even if it is considered in light of all of the circumstances alleged in the grounds for appeal. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

B. Defendant B’s crime of violation of the Illegal Check Control Act at the Suwon District Court on May 26, 199, and one year of suspended sentence in August of the crime of fraud, as well as one year of suspended sentence, could have been sentenced to criminal punishment, and the recovery of damage was not properly performed up to the trial. The motive and background of the instant crime, and the period before and after the instant crime.