2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.). In determining the punishment against the Defendant, the lower court considered the fact that the instant crime was committed against many and unspecified persons in an unfavorable circumstance, and that it was not making efforts to recover from damage, and considered the fact that there was no criminal record exceeding the fine imposed on the Defendant under favorable circumstances, and the amount of other defraudation.

As above, the lower court determined the punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable circumstances, and there is no special change in circumstances that make it possible for the lower court to change the sentence in the trial.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., as well as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant cannot be deemed to be excessively unreasonable as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.