2. The judgment of the defendant has the record of being punished by a fine for the same crime, and the embezzlement and occupational embezzlement of the crime of this case among the crimes of this case are embezzlement of considerable amount of money that the defendant collected from the debtor and used for the victims as living expenses, etc., and the nature and circumstances of the crime are not less complicated, but does not reach an agreement with the victim FF Co., Ltd. and M., and fraud is the fraud by deceiving the victim C who has delegated the debt collection business of this case and by deceiving the victim C with a considerable amount of money from the victim.

However, in full view of the fact that there is no history of punishment imposed by the Defendant exceeding a fine, the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim C and recognized the instant crime, thereby seriously against his/her own mistake, and other circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing specified in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the prosecutor’s above assertion is groundless since the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.