All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The sentence of the court below (the exemption of the sentence against Defendant A and the suspended sentence against Defendant B: six months of imprisonment) on the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On July 12, 2013, Defendant A’s judgment with respect to Defendant A committed an act of facilitating 48,50,000 won from the injured party by using a falsified apartment lease agreement forged as a result of the instant crime at the Jung-gu District Court on July 12, 2013, as to the act of using a falsified apartment lease agreement, the said judgment becomes final and conclusive on December 7, 2013 upon sentence of 2 years of suspended execution and 80 hours of community service, as well as the said case. The equity should be taken into account when the judgment is rendered simultaneously with the said case.

Although the recovery of damage was not different, the lower court’s exemption of punishment pursuant to the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act does not seem to be unfair in view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s sexual intercourse, the recovery of partial damage, and efforts to recover damage; and (b) the overall sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, and circumstances after the crime, etc.

B. The fact that Defendant B did not appear to deny and reflect the crime in light of the degree of participation, even though it is deemed that the nature of the crime was inferior in light of the degree of participation, it is necessary to consider equity in the case of the judgment at the same time with the final judgment of fraud, etc., the degree of punishment of Defendant A, who is an accomplice, the degree of health status is insufficient, and all the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, and circumstances after the crime, do not seem to be too unjustifiable and unfair.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.