As to the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant, two months of imprisonment and each crime of No. 2 of the judgment.

A. The punishment sentenced by the prosecutor (the first crime: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months, the suspension of execution for 1 year, and the second crime in its holding: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) is too uneased and unfair.

B. The above punishment sentenced to each of the crimes in Article 2 of the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the crime No. 1 in the holding, the fact that the defendant recognized the error and reflects it, and that the equity should be considered with the case where the judgment is rendered simultaneously with the crime of occupational embezzlement for which the judgment has become final.

However, the Defendant, by deceiving the workplace rent, obtained a considerable amount of money, but did not agree with the victim until the trial was held, and did not take any measures to recover the damage.

In addition, when comprehensively taking account of the factors of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument on unreasonable sentencing is justified.

B. As to each of the crimes of No. 2 in the holding, the defendant shows the appearance of recognizing and opposing this part of the crime.

However, the defendant acquired a large amount of money from the victim who asked for employment of children as a rain fund, and committed a crime of forging official documents, etc. of the Office of Education in order to conceal his mistake.

Furthermore, this part of the fraud crime was committed during the suspension of execution.

The defendant has not yet agreed with the victim and has not made efforts to recover the damage.

The victims want to be punished by a severe punishment of the defendant.

In addition, when comprehensively taking account of the factors of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, the lower court’s punishment is somewhat unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unreasonable sentencing is well-grounded, and the defendant's appeal is without merit.

3. Conclusion.