All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

The defendant asserts that with respect to the punishment sentenced by the court below (three years and six months of imprisonment), the defendant is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As regards the Defendant, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victims as if he could be in charge of cleaning services by taking advantage of the organization and figures of the Gu, acquired large amounts of money under the pretext of membership deposit, street funds, etc. In light of the period and frequency of the crime, means and methods, the amount of fraud and the degree of damage, etc., the crime and the crime are not good.

It has not received a letter from the victims, and the amount of damages not yet reimbursed has reached about KRW 70 million.

The defendant has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment and a sentence for the same crime even before.

Such circumstances are conditions for sentencing unfavorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant shows an attitude that the defendant recognized the facts charged in this case and partly recovered property damage suffered by the victims should be considered as circumstances favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the following circumstances: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court sentenced within the scope of the recommended sentencing criteria does not seem to be too light or unreasonable because it goes beyond the scope of reasonable discretion.

All the arguments of the Defendant and the prosecutor that the sentencing of the lower court is unfair are difficult to accept.

3. Conclusion