2. In light of the fact that the instant crime was committed on September 10, 2012 by the Defendant, even though the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to fully repay the loans on September 10, 2012, and was given a loan of KRW 28 million as the purchase price for a motor vehicle from the victim, and immediately thereafter, the crime is not deemed to have been committed by selling the motor vehicle and commercializing it on September 12, 2012, and the Defendant did not agree with the victim, there is a need to punish the Defendant strictly

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and against his mistake; (b) the Defendant was making efforts to recover damage by paying a monthly payment to the victim, etc.; (c) there is no penal power exceeding the same kind and fine; (iv) the detention of the Defendant is likely to entail excessive difficulty to his dependants; and (e) other factors of sentencing as well as the sentencing specified in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, happiness and family environment; and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

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.