The part of each of the crimes except for each of the crimes of fraud of No. 170 No. 2016 and No. 170 shall be reversed.

A. The respective types of punishment of the lower court (each of the crimes of fraud set forth in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of 2016 and 170 as indicated in the lower judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and each of the remaining crimes: 4 years) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence of the lower court by the Prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The instant crime of fraud in each of the instant paragraphs 1, 270 No. 2016 and 170 of the judgment of the court below is the victim AM obtained a total of KRW 12,897,00 from the victim AM as a loan.

The defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant under the agreement with the victim AM, and the crime of this case is in the concurrent relationship between fraud for which judgment has become final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the crime of this case, and therefore the punishment for each of the above crimes should be determined and sentenced in consideration of equity with the case where judgment is to be rendered simultaneously in accordance with the first part of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act. The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and recognized the crime of this case and

On the other hand, the fact that the amount of damage in this case is significant, and that the defendant has been punished twice prior to the instant case (one actual punishment, and one fine) by fraud is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc., the sentence of the lower court on the instant crime is too heavy or is deemed unreasonable because it is too low.

Therefore, this part of the unfair sentencing argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

B. From among the crimes of this case, among the crimes of this case, other than the crimes of fraud in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of 2016 and 170, the judgment of the court below, the Defendant would take over to the victim J the secured obligation of KRW 357 million out of the real estate purchase price of KRW 590 million and pay the remainder KRW 230 million.

The false statement is the fraud of real estate equivalent to KRW 230,00,000,00, and the fraud of the victim AI corporation is the market price by deceiving the above company.