2. In determining the sentence against the Defendant, the lower court determined a sentence by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) considering the Defendant’s previous convictions of the same kind of fine (the theft) into account three times; (b) considering the Defendant’s motive as having committed each of the instant crimes in circumstances where the Defendant was economically lacking; (c) there is no substantial benefit from the Defendant’s commission of the crime; (d) in the case of a crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the amount of damage was only 4,800 won; and (e) in the case of larceny in the judgment, the amount of damage was only 4,800 won; and (e) the victim did not want to recover from the scene and actually suffered damage; and (e) considering the favorable circumstances that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflected them; and (e) taking into account the Defendant’s age, sex, family relationship, living environment, means and result of the crime; and (e) taking into account various circumstances that

Examining the above sentencing of the lower court in light of the record, the lower court’s determination of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

There is no change in circumstances that can be seen as being unfair to maintain the sentencing of the court below in the trial. Thus, the court below's punishment cannot be deemed as unfair because it is too appropriate and too unhutiled.

The prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing is not accepted.

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.