2. The crime of this case is determined by the following facts: (a) the Defendant, upon being her natives with children, stolen the high-quality vision equivalent to KRW 6 million in the market price from the perspective of the circumstances of the crime; (b) there is a high possibility of criticism in light of the circumstances of the crime; (c) the Defendant continued to conceal the crime after being consigned to a medium and high-name shop; and (d) the Defendant, 2 years after the occurrence of the case, was entrusted with the repair of visibility; and (e) the Defendant, who purchased the visibility, was found to have been aware of the instant case; and (e) the Defendant

However, it is a sentencing factor favorable to the defendant that the defendant recognized all of his crime, that the defendant is the first offender, that the defendant is the first offender, that the victim pays 7 million won exceeding the amount of the damaged goods as compensation for damage, and that the purchaser of the visibility pays 1.2 million won to the purchaser.

In addition, considering the various factors of sentencing prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, etc., the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be too uneasible and 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.