2. In light of the fact that the Defendant leased the instant vehicle and let another person operate it, and the rent has not been paid, the fact that the crime is not good, and that the victim’s damage has not yet been recovered, etc. is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant is recognized as all of his criminal acts and is against the defendant, the fact that the defendant was an initial criminal who had no criminal power at the time of the crime of this case, and the fact that the failure of the business operation seems to result in the crime of this case, the defendant is trying to recover the damage of the victim, and the social ties relationship between the defendant and the defendant seems to be relatively clear, are favorable to the defendant.

In light of the above circumstances and motive leading up to the instant crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee for the Criminal Procedure of the Supreme Court [the scope of recommending punishment] (4 to 1.4 months) basic area (4 months) (4 months and 100 million won) (excluding general person) - where a crime is not an occupational embezzlement or breach of trust: serious reflectness, and there is no history of criminal punishment - Where a crime of embezzlement is committed [the suspension of execution] - In light of whether a crime of embezzlement is committed: positive (defluence of social relation, serious reflectness, and no criminal record beyond the suspension of execution). Thus, the prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion 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.