2. The fact that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime exceeds KRW 120 million and the Defendant did not temporarily recover for a long time is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant made confession of a crime when he was in the trial; (b) the Defendant has no criminal records of the same kind; (c) the Defendant agreed to pay part of the damaged amount and the remainder of the damaged amount thereafter; and (d) the Defendant received a letter from the victims; and (c) the Defendant is qualified as an architectural engineer and is expected to recover additional damage in the future; and (d) the lower court’s sentencing appears to be reasonable by fully considering the various sentencing grounds asserted by the Prosecutor; and (e) there is no special circumstance to the extent that the sentencing should be changed ex post facto, the Prosecutor’

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.