All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the court below (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the defendant reflects the crime of this case, the circumstances that led to the crime are considered, and efforts were made to recover the damage.

B. In light of the fact that the crime of this case by the prosecutor was committed by the defendant in an unreasonable way to prevent the return of multiple construction companies, it is not good that the crime of this case was committed by deceiving the money of the victims for a long time, the amount of damage is reasonable, and most of the damage are not recovered, etc., the punishment of the court below is too uneasible.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Since the current Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has a unique area in the sentencing determination, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing determination in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

The circumstances alleged by the defendant as favorable sentencing factors in the grounds of appeal and the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as unfavorable sentencing factors against the defendant in the grounds of appeal are deemed to have been fully considered in the court below’s determination of punishment at the court below, and there are no new additional circumstances to change the original court’s punishment at the court below. In light of the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below’s punishment cannot be deemed to be reasonable and too heavy or unreasonable.

(However, the lower court’s judgment’s 3rd lower judgment’s 8 lower judgment clearly states that “The first police officer of September 2019” is a clerical error of “the first police officer of September 2017,” and thus, ex officio correction is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.