2. The lower court rendered the above sentence by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the amount of damage exceeds KRW 90 million and the amount of damage has not been recovered, (b) the Defendant appears to have an attitude against the Defendant, and (c) the principle of equity with the case of a judgment at the same time as that of a final and conclusive judgment, etc.,

In addition to the circumstances considered by the court below, it shall be considered in favor of the defendant that the defendant would not intend to avoid his liability with a view to continuing to remit money to the victim as activity expenses even after the crime of this case.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to view that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unfasible as the prosecutor asserts.

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