2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment within the scope of one year and six months based on the sentencing guidelines, taking into account (i) the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances, (ii) the fact that there is a considerable number of records of punishment for the same kind of crime, (iii) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the repeated offense period due to the same kind of crime, and (iv) the fact that considerable damage has not been recovered, and (ii) the Defendant has agreed solely with some victims, such as the fact that all of the instant crimes are recognized by the Defendant, (i) the victim I, R, and S, and (iii) the fact that each damage was not significant except for the fraud committed against the victim L.

As above, the sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope by taking into account all the sentencing conditions specified in the proceedings of the instant case, and on the record, no special circumstance was found to change the sentencing of the lower court. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s punishment is unfair because it is too unfunied.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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 appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.