2. In light of the content and circumstances of each of the instant crimes, the number of victims, and the scale of damage, etc., it is necessary to impose strict liability on the Defendant inasmuch as the nature of the crime is not less than that of the victim, but still did not reach an agreement with a considerable number of victims.

However, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects the Defendant; (b) the Defendant actually contracted out and contracted out construction works; (c) the degree of deceiving the victims; (d) the Defendant did not relatively heavy; and (e) there are circumstances that may be taken into account the process and motive leading up to the crime; (b) the Defendant was in the first instance trial, and the Defendant did not want punishment against the Defendant; (c) the Defendant did not have the same criminal record; and (d) other various sentencing conditions as indicated in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime; and (e) the scope of recommendations (6 months to one year and six months) according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair and unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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.