2. Each of the crimes of this case committed on the basis of the following facts: (a) the Defendants forged a private document for the purpose of using it for fraud; and (b) the crime of this case was not less than that of deceiving 70 million won from the damaged person by using the above document; (c) the Defendant A committed each of the crimes of this case even though he had a number of criminal records; and (d) Defendant B had a record of being punished eight times due to the same type of crime.

However, it is reasonable to respect each of the crimes of this case in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants recognized and against each of the crimes of this case; (b) Defendant A recovered significant damage to the victim; and (c) Defendant B did not have any criminal record or heavier punishment than a suspended sentence due to the same kind of crime; and (d) where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment and the sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Other circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendants’ age, environment, sex behavior, motive for the crime, and conditions before and after the crime, it cannot be deemed unfair to view the lower court’s punishment too un

3. In conclusion, since the prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is without merit, all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.