2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendants on a leased house and installed a special camera and a radio transmission receiver, etc., thereby deceiving money from the victims. The Defendants conspired to act systematically and systematically, share the role of the Defendants, and committed the crime of fraud with professional veterinary methods using up-to-date equipment, and commit the crime of this case, and the Defendants committed the crime of this case by using the personal trust relationship with the Defendants, even though the Defendants and the victims were in ex post facto, the Defendants committed the crime of this case, which is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the defendants divided the crime of this case, the sum of the amount acquired by the defendants is not more than 1,840,000 won, and the frequency of the crime is only two times, the victims are not liable for civil and criminal liability by agreement between the defendants and the victims, three times in the case of the defendants A, two times in the case of the defendants and five times in the case of the defendants C, and five times in the case of the defendants. The defendants C voluntarily surrenders to the crimes of this case, which are favorable to the defendants.

In full view of the above circumstances and the motive leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the age of the Defendants, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., as well as all the circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable. Thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.