All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant acquired a total of KRW 1.59 billion from three victims. In the process, the Defendant forged and exercised eight copies of the loan certificate in order to further borrow money from the victim E, and thus, the applicable law and the nature of the crime may be deemed inappropriate.

Defendant has already been punished three times for fraud.

(2) The victims have been punished by imprisonment for April, 2005, a suspended sentence of 1 year, a fine of 2 million won in November, 2007, and a fine of 500,000 won in October, 209). The defendant has not yet been fully recovered from the victims, and the victims have not agreed with the victims.

Therefore, it is inevitable to punish the defendant with severe punishment corresponding to his criminal liability.

However, even though the defendant does not reach an agreement with the victims, he/she has repaid the amount equivalent to KRW 1190 million out of the total amount of 1,521,430,000 of the total amount of 1,521,430,000 of the total amount of the crime of this case, and thus, he/she can be deemed to have recovered a considerable portion of the amount of the damage, and there is a favorable circumstance for the defendant to

In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, family relationship, and all the sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings, the sentencing of the lower court, which is within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines, appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of its discretion, and the sentencing of the lower court.