2. The lower court sentenced the above punishment by taking account of the following favorable circumstances: (a) under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant’s acquisition of a large amount exceeding KRW 200 million over a long time and performance of unfair business affairs; (b) the Defendant’s commission of business affairs does not seem to have actual damage to C; (c) the Defendant’s commission of business affairs does not seem to have occurred due to unlawful business affairs; (d) the Defendant’s commission of a crime late at the latest; and (e) returned all the acquired money to the premium payer; (e) the Defendant did not have any other penal power except for those subject to a fine twice due to a different type of crime; and (e) the Defendant has

In addition to the circumstances considered by the court below, the court below shall take into consideration the facts that the social ties of the defendant seems clear.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to view that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unfasible as the prosecutor asserts.

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