The defendant and prosecutor's appeal are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the court below (the sentence No. 1 and No. 2 in the original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, the second-b, 3, and 4 in the decision of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for one year) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the prosecutor (the first and second crimes in the original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, the second crimes in the judgment of the court below for two crimes, the third and fourth crimes: imprisonment with prison labor for one year) is too unhutiled and unfair.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where 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 en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime, such as: (b) the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with labor one time due to the crime of violating the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act; (c) the fact that there was no particular criminal power except for the punishment imposed once by a fine; and (d) the fact that the Defendant agreed with W is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the amount of damage caused by the crime No. 1 and No. 2 in the decision of the court below reaches KRW 470 million, and the amount of damage caused by the crime No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4 in the decision of the court below is higher than KRW 100 million, and the defendant was unable to agree with the victims except for the victim W up to the trial, and the amount of damage caused by the crime of fraud against WW is less than KRW 3 million in the total amount of damage, and the amount of damage caused by the crime of fraud against WW is less than the total amount of damage, not more than KRW 3 million in the trial, and the defendant was unable to recover additional damage in the trial, and the defendant committed the crime No. 2, No. 2, 3, and 4 in the

In addition, in the case of the crime of No. 1 and No. 2 of the judgment of the court below, it is judged concurrently with the crime of violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, which became final and conclusive.