All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no fact that Defendant (the factual error and the victim of unfair sentencing) was on the part of Defendant C.

The amount of punishment (3 million won of a fine) is unreasonable.

(b) Determination of an amount of punishment imposed on an applicant for inspection (unfair punishment) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant recognized the criminal facts in the lower court’s judgment regarding the assertion of mistake of facts.

A victim's statement shall support the confession statement of the defendant.

The defendant reversed the confession statement in the appellate court, and the defendant's statement of reversal is sufficient to accept it.

It is difficult to deem that there is evidence to support this.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17869, Oct. 13, 2016). There is no error in the judgment of the lower court that recognized that the Defendant was injured by the victim’s scam loss by mistake in the fact-finding that the Defendant caused the injury, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed to have higher punishment than the scope of recommending punishment under the attached sentencing guidelines (from April to June).

However, the court below seems to have determined the punishment by taking account of the circumstances of the crime and the degree of damage.

The court below did not err in selecting and applying the elements of sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions in the appellate court.

The determination of the original judgment cannot be respected.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Examining the sentencing factor and other factors of sentencing set forth in the sentencing guidelines for the crime of injury in this court again, the determination of the original sentence does not seem to be hot or unreasonable, beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is without merit.

All of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.