The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant has already been punished for more than one hundred times due to the same crime, and the record of the punishment as the sentence is over two hundred times, and that the Defendant has a habit of an indeption, etc., the sentence of the lower court exempted from the punishment is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). (b) The lower court exempted the Defendant from punishment by taking into account the equity between the case where a crime of fraud (one year of imprisonment) in which the judgment on the criminal facts as indicated in the judgment and the criminal facts as indicated in the judgment is in a concurrent crime relationship after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and at the same time, the judgment was rendered.

(c)

The summary of the crime of fraud in the judgment of the court below is that the defendant, through a one-time random-type, acquired 58,000 won or more, and the summary of the crime of fraud in which the judgment has become final and conclusive is that the defendant acquired 50,000 won or more through a one-time random-type and he received 50,000 won or more.