2. The following facts are revealed: (a) the victim was punished by the defendant; (b) the victim was deemed to have failed to recover significant part of the damage of the crime of this case; (c) the defendant borrowed money from the victim without clarifying the original due date or interest; and (d) the defendant's economic situation at that time is difficult; and (c) there are some circumstances to consider before and after the crime of this case, such as arranging the victim to work at the site of a thermal power plant; (d) the defendant deposited KRW 2 million for the victim; and (e) the defendant made efforts to recover damage by depositing the victim; (e) there was no specific record of the crime other than the defendant sentenced to a fine once due to the violation of Road Traffic Act; and (e) the defendant's age, character, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime of this case; and (e) the scope of the recommended sentence pursuant to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court sentencing committee; and (e) the defendant's assertion that the execution of the community service order is unreasonable by adding the sentence to the defendant is unreasonable.

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.