All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant (three months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, and forty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

Judgment

The crime of this case is to enable the defendant to get a loan by asking the guarantor.

The circumstances that are disadvantageous to the defendant are recognized, such as the deception of two victims and the fraud of 4,60,000 won in total as commission fees, the fact that the criminal liability is heavy in light of the details of the crime, such as the background of the crime and the amount of fraud, the defendant has not made any effort to recover the victims' damage, and the fact that the defendant has the records of the same crime.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant are also recognized, such as the fact that the defendant made a confession of the crime of this case and reflects the mistake in depth, and that it is necessary to consider the equity with the case where the defendant was tried together with the crime, such as the conflict with the judgment already rendered.

On the other hand, in our criminal litigation law taking the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists an area unique to the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), and the unfavorable or favorable circumstances against the recognized accused do not constitute a special change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the lower court after the sentence of the lower court.

In addition, the court below's sentencing was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it does not seem that the court below's punishment is too weak or unfair because it is too poor, in light of the circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as Defendant's age, sex, environment, etc.