The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentenced by the court below to the summary of the grounds for appeal (four months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant, who is urged to pay a large amount of debt, received KRW 75 million under the name of the deposit for lease, by deceiving the victim, even though there is no intention or ability to guarantee the use and profit of the leased real estate or return the deposit for lease. In light of the method of crime and the scale of damage, it is not good that the crime was committed. Nevertheless, the Defendant committed the crime of this case by transfer to the victim, even though the Defendant had been sentenced twice to imprisonment for the same kind of crime, and the Defendant again committed the crime of this case despite the fact that he had been sentenced twice due to the previous crime, and the damage equivalent to KRW 54,00,00 has not been recovered until now, taking into account the fact that the victim wants to punish the Defendant. The previous and the previous conviction in the lower judgment are in a concurrent relationship with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, taking into account the equity between the case where the Defendant declares the judgment at the same time, and taking into account the fact that the victim received some favorable damage from AC that he purchased points in a voluntary auction procedure.

Even when taking into account the unfavorable circumstances that the nature of the offense of the Defendant is not less light, the instant case ought to take into account the equity between the case and the case of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with regard to each previous criminal record as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and taking into account the circumstances favorable to the court below, such as the fact that some damages have been recovered, and all other sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances leading to the offense, means and consequence, scale of the offense, and circumstances after the offense, it cannot be deemed that the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Accordingly, prosecutor’s assertion is justifiable.