2. In light of the period of the crime, frequency of the crime, amount of damage, and method of the crime, etc., the Defendant needs to be punished for strict punishment in light of the following: (a) the Defendant falsely listed I as an employee of F and H, Inc., and (b) paid money equal to KRW 100 million on 49 occasions from April 2006 to March 201; and (c) the period of the crime, frequency of the crime, amount of damage, method of the crime, etc.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant has no history of being subject to punishment exceeding the fine, that the Defendant appears to be a de facto one shareholder as the actual operator of the above two companies, that all damages to the above two companies have been compensated, and that other factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, occupation and family environment, background and result of the crime, etc., are equally considered, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, 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.