2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

B. The lower court, with respect to the crimes Nos. 11 through 193 in the annexed Table 11, determined a sentence by taking account of the following factors: (a) the damage was not recovered even though the amount of damage was not so much; (b) the damage was not received from the injured; and (c) the fact that the crime was committed during the repeated crime period with respect to the same kind of crime; and (d) the case where the crime in the annexed table Nos. 1 through 10 was adjudicated simultaneously with the crime of fraud as determined by the final and conclusive judgment; and (b) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment

(c)

The reason for the court below's improper sentencing, as claimed by the prosecutor, seems to be the reason for the court below's determination of the defendant's punishment, and the above conditions of sentencing changed otherwise.

There is no circumstance to see (the defendant agreed with the victim in the trial) and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.