2. The crime of this case is a normal situation where the defendant deceivings the victim to take money in the name of the price of goods, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the defendant has many records of being subject to juvenile protective disposition or punished by a fine due to the same crime, and the defendant has not received a letter from the injured party, and the defendant has fled during the trial of the court below, and is not present even in the trial of the court below.

However, the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects his mistake; the Defendant did not have any previous conviction exceeding the fine; and the Defendant received a summary order of a fine of KRW 1 million on June 7, 2016 due to the same kind of crime under the same law that was committed on March 10, 2016. The instant crime was committed prior to the same type of crime, and thus, the instant crime appears to be a case that could have been investigated and tried together.

In addition to the above circumstances, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, its means and consequence, etc., as well as all of the sentencing conditions as indicated in the records and theories of changes, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.