2. The Defendant had already been punished for a crime of fraud under the same law, but did not reflect the fact that he again committed the crime of this case, and had a clear intent and continued to commit an save fraud against multiple buyers for a considerable period of time, and the method and nature of the crime are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant acknowledges and reflects the crime, that some victims such as the J have taken measures to recover damage, and that they have been punished by a fine as a crime of the same law, but there are no other criminal records, and that there is no penalty more than a suspended sentence, it is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, circumstances leading to the Defendant’s crime, means and consequence, and all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant records and pleadings, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is appropriate and the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit, since the court below's punishment is too unfasible.

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.