2. In light of the fact that the Defendant has long been punished by a fine for the same kind of crime, even though the amount of damage in this case was not so much, the Defendant has no agreement with the victim, and most of the damages have not been recovered, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant did not separately appeal the judgment of conviction; (b) the amount of profit that the Defendant actually acquired in relation to the instant crime appears to be KRW 5 million; (c) the Defendant paid the victim in installments; (d) the Defendant has been making continuous efforts to reach an agreement with the victim; and (e) the Defendant has been making efforts to pay the amount of damage in the future; (b) there are circumstances that can be partly terminated or considered due to the commission of the crime that occurred while the Defendant was running a clothing retail business with G, etc.; (c) the Defendant was detained for a certain period; (d) there was no change in special circumstances or circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below; and (e) there is no change in other circumstances or circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below; and (e) the motive and means of the instant crime; and (e) the motive and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the conditions of sentencing and the records.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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.