2. We also examine the judgment and prosecutor’s improper claims for sentencing.

Considering that the defendant had a continuous business relationship with the victim, in light of the property status at the time of the defendant or the use of the money actually acquired by the defendant, the degree of the defendant's deception and the intention shall be less than that of the defendant.

It is not possible to see that there are various circumstances such as the nature of the crime of this case and the possibility of criticism, such as the fact that the fraud of this case amounts to about KRW 97 million, and the fact that the damage has not yet been recovered.

However, there are circumstances that should be taken into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant, since November 2014, the defendant had a normal attitude to recognize and reflect the error in the trial, and that the defendant had no record of the same kind of crime in return for receiving orders from the injured party even after around April 2015, which led to the aggravation of financial circumstances after the occurrence of the situation where the defendant had become unable to implement the delivery due to the aggravation of financial circumstances, and that the defendant had no record of the same crime, in addition to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to fraud in 2003.

Considering the above circumstances and the overall circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, record of crime, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc., the sentence sentenced by the court below is within the reasonable scope of discretion for sentencing.

The decision is judged.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.