2. The judgment of the Defendant used a long-term core chip to D, and the fact that the investigation agency caused the so-called “refibation” to interfere with identifying the location of the said person under suspicion of violating the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act is disadvantageous to D.

However, aside from the fact-finding that the Defendant asserted the legal judgment on the instant crime at the lower court, it is more favorable that the Defendant consistently recognized the fact-finding itself from the investigation stage, and that the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment in the Republic of Korea, and there is no evidence to deem that there is economic benefits acquired from the instant crime.

In this context, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of a crime, and circumstances after a crime, various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Furthermore, there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.