2. In light of the fact that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime was not much, the agreement with the victim or the damage recovery seems to have not been made up to now, and the Defendant had been punished once suspended from execution of the same crime and five times of fines, and most of them are crimes related to travel business similar to the instant crime, it is necessary to hold the Defendant liable with strict liability corresponding to them.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant falls under the basic area of category 1 (less than KRW 100 million) among the "general fraud" in the sentencing guidelines; (b) the scope of the sentence imposed by the court below falls under the basic area of category 1 (less than KRW 100 million) among the fraud sentencing guidelines; and (c) the crime of violation of the Tourism Promotion Act has not been set the sentencing guidelines; and (b) the crime of violation of the same Act has not been set the sentencing guidelines; and (c) according to the majority crime processing guidelines, the scope of the sentence imposed by the court below is more than six months.

The lower limit was somewhat set aside.

Even if so, it is not recognized that it is unfair because it is too unhued.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is not accepted.

3. The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, "Article 50" in Article 50 of the "Article 50" shall be applied to the extent that the long-term punishment of the two crimes is added.