2. The Defendant committed the instant crime committed by deceiving 276,200,000 won from the victim who had come to know in the studio of studio had been subject to criminal punishment several times due to the same type of crime, and in particular, it had been sentenced to imprisonment for four months on July 18, 201, and had the National Tax Service seized to the National Tax Service as a matter of tax, and had the employee of the National Tax Service invested money in the studio studio in the name of cash and living expenses. It was committed by inducing the employee of the Financial Supervisory Service to misrepresent himself/herself. The Defendant committed the instant crime by deceiving 26,000 won through 26,000 won from the victim. In light of the circumstances and contents leading to the said crime, and the number of criminal acts, etc., the Defendant had a record of criminal punishment on several occasions due to the same crime, and in particular, he/she did not take any disadvantageous measure to recover the instant crime during the period of repeated crime.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime; (b) without any objection to the judgment of the court below, and (c) the Defendant’s age, family environment, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime were committed; and (d) other various sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings, the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.