2. The Defendant had the record of committing the instant crime, in particular, that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the same repeated crime period, and that the amount of damage reaches KRW 50 million and has not been recovered, and that the amount of damage is at least KRW 30 million, and that the Defendant also predicted a certain degree of the failure to pay promissory notes provided as security to the victim is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the above promissory note was endorsed and endorsed by E and kept a certain degree of collateral, and the victim has lost an opportunity to recover damage by exercising the right of recourse as the victim was unaware of the location of the promissory note, the defendant deposited KRW 20 million in order to recover damage, and the defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment until now except for the instant crime since the execution of punishment was completed on October 18, 2008, and it cannot be deemed unfair because the punishment imposed by the court below is too small, taking into account all the sentencing conditions expressed in the arguments, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion 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.