All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

The defendant shall obtain money of KRW 35,00,000 from the applicant for compensation for the trial.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) Prosecutor: The punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) shall be too unhued and unreasonable; and

B. Defendant: The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing 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 does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole basis of the fact that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the overall circumstances concerning the sentencing of the Defendant’s sentencing, and there is no circumstance to newly consider in the appellate court. Therefore, considering the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor and the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, it is not recognized that the sentence of the lower court is too somewhat unfavorable or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, since both the prosecutor and the defendant's appeal are without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since an application for remedy order filed by the person who applied for compensation by the trial is well-grounded, an order to pay money of KRW 35 million by fraud to the defendant under Articles 25 (1), 31 (1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is issued, and a provisional execution is attached to a compensation order pursuant to Article 31 (3) of the same Act.