2. The judgment was examined, and the defendant had the record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime in the past, and the injured person wanted to punish the defendant's severe punishment because the damage caused by the fraud of this case was not completely recovered, and the defendant deceivings the victim three times even though he did not have sufficient ability to repay, and the defendant also forged the real estate lease contract in the name of J in the process. Considering the circumstances that the prosecutor asserts the defendant as an unfavorable sentencing factor against the defendant in the trial of the case, such as the circumstance of the crime and the method of the crime, the defendant's assertion is against the defendant as an alternative for each of the crimes of this case, even though considering the fact that the damage amount caused by the fraud of this case was relatively small in sum amount to KRW 15 million, and up to now, it was not recognized that the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in the judgment of the court below, including the fact that the damage amount caused by the fraud of this case was repaid at least KRW 8 million.

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 prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.