2. The Defendants’ respective crimes of this case are not intentionally deceiving victims from the beginning, but they appear to have committed each of the above crimes with negligence as they were punished in the course of the original processing business. The Defendants recognized each of the crimes of this case and recognized their mistakes. Defendant A completed the recovery of damage caused by the crimes of this case as stated in the judgment of the court below among each of the crimes of this case; Defendant B must take into account the equity in the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously with the final judgment of the first head of the judgment of the court below in the case of Defendant B.

On the other hand, the amount obtained by deceit of each of the crimes of this case is the largest (as to Defendant A: approximately KRW 693,00,000, approximately KRW 608,000, KRW 600). The Defendants partially repaid the damage caused by the second crime as to the judgment of the court below, but failed to complete recovery of the damage, and the Defendants were punished for the same kind of crime, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendants.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and other circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, relationship to victims, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and circumstances, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be appropriate as a punishment within the scope of the discretion for sentencing.

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, since all of the appeals are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.