2. The instant crime is a condition for sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant, such as: (a) the Defendant, jointly with his accomplices, by taking 17 million won from the victim E in accordance with a thorough plan and systematic division of roles; (b) the Defendant acquired 13 million won in total from three victims under the name of a multi-mediate payment; (c) the nature of the instant crime is bad; (d) the Defendant has been subject to criminal punishment several times prior to the instant crime; and (e) the Defendant was either subject to agreement with the victim E or R or was unable to recover from damage until the trial.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant is recognized as both the instant crime and is against the victim L/O; (b) the Defendant was smoothly agreed with the victim L/O; (c) some damage is deemed to have been recovered by the victim E, an accomplice; (d) the Defendant’s age is in the position to support three children; and (e) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, the lower court’s sentence is deemed unreasonable. Therefore, 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 on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.