2. In light of the fact that the Defendants’ damage caused by the instant crime was not recovered from the injury, there is a bad appearance of the crime. However, the Defendants recognized the instant crime for the first time and reflected depth, the Defendants are paying damages in the future, and the Defendants did not have any degree of violation due to the circumstances in which the Defendants were scheduled to resign from the victim company. The Defendants did not pay for the Defendants’ failure to pay for the supply of KRW 37,557,600, which the Defendants received from G Management Bank, and the amount of actual damage of the victim company is deemed not to fall short of the amount of actual profit, and the amount of actual damage of the victim company is deemed not to fall short of the amount of loss. The Defendants concluded a contract at a low price that does not fall short of the cost with the consideration of the future contracting parties, and there is no profit acquired by the Defendants, and there is no same criminal history, and there is no special reason or circumstance to newly consider the sentencing after the issuance of the judgment below. In full view of all the circumstances and circumstances revealed after the instant crime and the record, the sentencing of the Defendants.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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.