2. The crime of this case is determined by the prosecutor's assertion that the defendant should be punished strictly according to the following: (a) the defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the principal and interest of the loan and purchased a vehicle equivalent to the purchase price of the vehicle from the victim company, and then disposed of the vehicle within a short period and commercialized it; and (b) the amount of damage to the crime of this case is not 27 million won; and (c) the defendant must be punished strictly according to the fact that there is no agreement with the victim company.

However, in full view of all the circumstances indicated in the record, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, circumstance before and after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is not deemed to be unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant is not deemed to be unreasonable, on the grounds that, since the instant crime was committed, the Defendant made efforts to recover damage by repaying the agreed amount from July 2013 to the victim company from around July 2013, the Defendant was punished on a monthly basis; the Defendant did not have any past record of punishment more than six times as a fine for the instant crime; and thus, the effect of punishment by a suspended sentence is expected with community service, etc., along with a suspended sentence.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.