All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment (five million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

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

2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where 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. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court by destroying the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the difference between the views of the appellate court and the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the ground that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of all the sentencing grounds presented by the lower court, it is not recognized that the sentencing of the lower court is too heavy or unhued and the amount repaid by the Defendant to the victim in this case is not more than 3.5 million won (such as the victim’s assertion, the amount repaid by the Defendant to the victim does not exceed 3.

Even if the defendant's obligation to pay KRW 15 million, which is recognized by the judgment submitted by the victim, was paid or deposited by the injured party among the 15 million won in the loan certificate prepared by the defendant.

The remainder of the claimed 3.5 million won can be seen as the remainder of the claimed 3.5 million won, and since the full amount of KRW 15 million on the above loan certificate cannot be deemed as the amount of damage of this case, it shall not be deemed as the changed sentencing assessment.

In light of the amount of damage and the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the sentencing of the judgment below is too weak.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.