2. The lower court, under the circumstances that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period with regard to the same crime, determined a sentence by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the victim’s wish not to be punished, and taking into account the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and taking into account various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments.

The grounds for unfair sentencing (such as the fact that the defendant repaid the amount of damage and agreed with the victim) alleged by the defendant, and the grounds for unfair sentencing (the fact that the amount of damage is small compared to the amount of fraud, the defect of the nature of the defendant, the kind and records of the crime of the defendant, etc.) alleged by the prosecutor are all determined by the court below, which has already considered sufficient factors in determining the punishment against the defendant, and otherwise changed the above conditions of sentencing.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

All the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.