The judgment below

Of them, the crime of No. 2 of the Decision 2019 Highest258 of the case against Defendant A, 2019 Highest59 of the case, and 2020 Highestest 290 of the case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment against Defendant A (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants by the prosecutor (the Defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment and the suspension of execution, 2 years of imprisonment, 1 year of imprisonment, 1 year of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination on Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant A

A. An unfavorable circumstance is that the judgment on the part of the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the 2019 Highest258 case amounts to KRW 85,00,000 in total, and that there was a same criminal record for the crime of fraud to Defendant A at the time of the crime in this part.

On the other hand, the fact that Defendant A recognizes this part of the crime in the trial, and this part of the crime of fraud is in conflict with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive in the judgment of the court below in 2015, and the principle of equity with the judgment of the court below should be considered at the same time

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to this part of the crime, Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, and environment, the lower court’s punishment on this part of the crime is too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, the above assertion by Defendant A and the prosecutor is without merit.

B. The lower court’s judgment on each part of the crimes in the Decision 2019 Highest 258 cases, 2019 Highest 599, 2020 Highest 290 cases, and Defendant A’s fraud amounting to KRW 85,50,000 in total, and the period of unauthorized occupation of the crime in violation of the State Property Act is considerably high, and Defendant A has the same criminal records of the crime in violation of the State Property Act and the State Property Act.

On the other hand, the fact that Defendant A recognized this part of the crime in the trial, and the victim C does not want the punishment of Defendant A by mutual consent with the victim C among the victims.