2. Determination

A. According to the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists an area unique to the first deliberation regarding sentencing, and in light of the fact that the court of first instance ex post facto character of the appellate trial, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first-oriented sentencing if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first-oriented trial, and the first-oriented sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). (B) The crime in this case is not good in light of the means and method of the crime, the frequency of the crime, etc., and the Defendant continued to repeat the same crime without being involved in the investigation and trial as the Internet goods fraud committed earlier, which is highly likely to be subject to criticism, which does not reach an agreement with the victims, and which does not seem to have been made efforts to recover damage.

However, in full view of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is too unfeasible and unfair in light of the following: (a) there was no special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court after the pronouncement of the lower judgment; (b) the Defendant recognized a mistake and reflects the Defendant; (c) the primary offender who has no record of criminal punishment; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, means and consequence of the crime; and (b) other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

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