2. The fact that the defendant sufficiently satisfied the damage caused by the instant crime or did not agree with the victims is disadvantageous to the sentencing.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime; (b) the Defendant intentionally failed to pay the amount of drinking water from the beginning; (c) the amount of damage incurred by the instant crime is not large; (d) the Defendant was subject to a criminal disposition, such as suspended sentence, due to the same crime; (c) there was no other criminal record regarding the Defendant since 2003; (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, occupation, details and details leading to the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances leading to the sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because it is too 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.