The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant is 450,00 won by fraud to BV, who is an applicant for compensation, and B Q, who is an applicant for compensation.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) by the lower court is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. The prosecutor’s sentencing determination on the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

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, taking full account of all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant’s sentencing, determined a sentence within the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines (one to four years of imprisonment) and did not find any circumstances that may be specially considered in the trial.

The circumstance cited by the prosecutor as the reason for appeal is an element that has already been determined by the lower court as well as sufficiently taken into account when determining the punishment, and even if examining the various factors of sentencing as shown in the argument in this case closely, it cannot be said that the lower court’s sentencing is unfeasible to the point that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, the Defendant is applying for compensation of KRW 450,00 from BV, the applicant for compensation, KRW 110,00 from B Q, the applicant for compensation.