2. The judgment does not have a large amount of damage inflicted upon the Defendant’s Cheongw Co., Ltd. due to the instant crime, and even if more than two years have elapsed since the date of the instant crime, the Defendant was unable to receive a letter from the victim due to the Defendant’s reimbursement of the amount of damage or the agreement with the victim, etc. However, the Defendant was in profoundly opposed to recognizing the Defendant’s mistake, and the Defendant did not have any record of being punished for the same crime as the instant crime, and there appears to be some circumstances that may be somewhat taken into account the motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, and the Defendant appears to have any other circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, occupation, family relation, etc., it cannot be said that the Defendant’s sentence imposed by the

3. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That since each of the "No. 1 and No. 2" of the criminal facts of the judgment of the court below is clear that the "no. 1 and No. 2" in the "no. 1 and No. 2 of the judgment of the court below is an erroneous office in the "no. 1 and no. 2", it is corrected to correct it ex officio