2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant not only has the record of being sentenced one time to a punishment for the same crime and three times as a punishment for the same crime, but also commits the crime of this case without being aware of the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, that the criminal act of this case was committed while being investigated by an investigative agency, that the amount of the defraudation exceeds 430 million won in total, and that the act of deceiving the sales allowance as an insurance designer with the performance as in the crime of this case is likely to cause an increase in the insurance premium of a good insurance policyholder, and that the crime is not good.

However, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unfeasible and unfair, in light of the following factors: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of all the crimes; (b) the damage of the victim Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. appears to have been recovered; (c) the victim’s wife was agreed with the victim E; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (d) the circumstances after

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the “total amount of KRW 159,101,130” of the fourth 3 parallel of the judgment below is a clerical error of “total of KRW 144,701,130,” and thus, it is obvious that the correction is ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on