2. Each of the instant frauds committed repeatedly against many unspecified victims. The crime obstructing the performance of official duties of the instant case, obstructing confinement, and refusing to leave was defective in the course and content of the crime, the Defendant’s record of criminal punishment against the same victim, etc. is not good. In some of the crimes, the Defendant committed a crime continuously without being aware of the fact that the Defendant continued to commit the crime while undergoing the investigation or trial.

However, it is advantageous to the following: (a) the Defendant made a confession of all of the instant crimes and against his mistake that the Defendant would not repeat the crime in the future; (b) there is no record of the crime exceeding the fine imposed on the Defendant; (c) the amount of damage to each of the instant fraud is not significant; (d) the Defendant’s detention, the Defendant’s refusal to leave, and the police officer and the victims of the instant fraud who have suffered damage from the crime interfering with the performance of official duties; and (e) the Defendant remitted or deposited most of the amount acquired by the victims of the instant fraud, and partly the victims of the instant fraud have not been punished

Considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., as well as the aforementioned circumstances, various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or to maintain them as they are.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing 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.