Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

The seizure of articles 1 through 3 shall be confiscated.

A. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

The summary of the criminal facts of the defendant's attempted fraud against the victim H among the criminal facts stated in the judgment below is as follows.

On March 16, 2016, at least 10:00, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “A female public prosecutor, who is a prosecutor of the prosecutor’s office, is in the process of investigation, and there is a mixture of money in the passbook, so I do not know of the capital outside the agricultural cooperative members, after withdrawal of all the money, I am going to go to the outside of the agricultural cooperative.” At around 11:40 on the same day, the Defendant had cash KRW 50 million at the house with the Gwangju-gu Hamdong-dong Hamdong-dong, and thus, the Defendant was unable to take property advantage of the victim’s dispositive act or take advantage of the victim’s opportunity to take property fraud.” On the premise that the Defendant did not take advantage of the victim’s dispositive act or take advantage of the victim’s dispositive act, the Defendant did not have attempted to take advantage of the victim’s dispositive act.” The Defendant, who received such contact immediately in the future, conspired the victim’s name and take advantage of the victim’s property fraud.

Here, property dispositive act refers to an act that causes property damage directly, which is subjectively recognized by the defrauded as a dispositive intent, that is, the result of the disposition.