2. The crime of this case is not likely to be committed in a systematic manner, and there are no unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime.

However, the Defendant delivered KRW 400 million to K via L, which was returned to KRW 100 million among them, and again received KRW 100 million from C, and eventually, the Defendant’s profit was KRW 10 million, and it is insufficient to conclude the degree of participation solely based on the accomplice’s statement since accomplices went beyond their responsibilities after the commencement of the investigation into this case. Thus, it is important to conclude the degree of participation by the accomplice’s statement, in light of the fact that the Defendant directly delivered the victim and carried out the intermediate delivery, and the amount of participation by the Defendant and the Defendant’s age.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to see that the victim’s vague expectation has contributed to the expansion of damage, equity with accomplices similar to the degree of participation, character and conduct, intelligence and environment of the defendant, background leading to the crime of this case, means and method of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime of this case, etc., the court below’s punishment is too uneasible and unfair, and thus, the prosecutor’s above assertion is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.