The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as an unfavorable factor in the lower court’s trial were already revealed in the hearing process of the lower court, and there is no change of circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing criteria after the sentence of the lower court was rendered.

Along with the fact that the amount of fraud of this case reaches about KRW 45 million, and that the defendant agreed to repay the amount of damage subsequently to the victim on the day of the decision of the court below and did not pay the amount of damage for a long time thereafter, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, it appears that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is against the defendant, that the defendant agreed again with the victim in the trial of the party, and paid 50 million won to the victim, and that the defendant has no record of the same crime.