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 does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Each of the instant crimes is an unfavorable circumstance against the Defendant, such as: (a) each of the instant crimes was committed by the Defendant repeatedly by the victims during a considerable period of time, and the amount of damage was 1320,020,000 won in total; (b) the Defendant committed a repeated crime due to the same crime even during the repeated offense period; and (c) the Defendant failed to recover the damage.

However, the fact that the defendant recognizes each of the crimes in this case and is against the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

The court below determined a sentence in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions different from that of the court below in the first instance.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be unfair as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

We do not accept the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, it is ex officio pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below's dismissal of "the above Nong Bank" as "the above Nong Bank" as "the above No. 3, No. 2," and in the same face below, it is corrected as follows.