The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., e., imprisonment) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendant to the said punishment.

The circumstance cited by the prosecutor as the reason for appeal is an element that has already been determined in the original trial and sufficiently taken into account, and there is no circumstance that can be specially considered in the trial, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing.

Specifically, there are many unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant committed a crime to raise gambling funds, the amount of damage therefrom reaches approximately KRW 13.6 million, the victim expressed his wish to punish the defendant because the damage has not been recovered, and the defendant has a record of committing the same kind of crime under similar veterinary laws.

However, it is necessary to determine punishment in consideration of equity in the case of judgement at the same time with the crime of fraud, which is concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code.