2. The lower court determined that the Defendant is reasonably responsible for recognizing the Defendant’s crime, and for the victim’s occurrence of the crime and the expansion of damage.

In light of the favorable circumstances of the fact that the amount of damage could be seen, the fact that the damage has not been recovered at all is considered as a disadvantageous condition, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence was determined within the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines (two years of suspended sentence in June).

The grounds for the improper sentencing (amount of damage, recovery of damage, necessity of severe punishment for the crime of fraud) alleged by the prosecutor are shown to have been sufficiently considered in determining the punishment against the defendant by the court below, and any other change in the above sentencing conditions.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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.