All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The court below rejected the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, and pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation. Thus, the part dismissing the application for compensation order is determined immediately and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is too minor or unreasonable.

3. We examine both the judgment and the prosecutor’s unfair claims for sentencing.

In comparison with the first instance court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and in the event that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a sentence by the lower court in consideration of the following: (a) the Defendant borrowed money on several occasions by using the trust relationship with the victims; (b) the Defendant consumeds it as gambling funds, etc.; (c) the nature of the crime is bad; (d) the amount of damage exceeds 74 million won in total; (d) the victims want to be punished by the Defendant; and (e) the victims wanted to be punished by the Defendant; (e) the Defendant’s mistake is recognized; and (e) the Defendant has no other penal force except for the punishment for larceny.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or is so unfluent that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument are without merit.

4. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.