The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant planned and led the illegal work loan and used the money acquired by the Defendant, among the original judgment, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the relevant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant repeatedly commits the fraud and that the amount obtained by deception is considerable, the lower court’s sentence (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unfeasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the assertion of mistake of facts in detail stating the grounds for determination of the relevant facts charged.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the court below did not err in matters of mistake of facts, as alleged by the prosecutor, in the judgment below that acquitted the relevant facts charged.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unfeasible and so it cannot be deemed that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing.