2. Although the period of the instant crime is not shorter than the period of the instant crime, the employment of illegal aliens is detrimental to the immigration order, the deprivation of employment opportunities for Koreans and foreigners having the status of sojourn, and the creation of potential criminal causes for the illegal aliens, such as the occurrence of labor exploitation and potential crimes. However, the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit, given that the Defendant was led to the confession of each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant, who operates a small business, is only one illegal foreigner, and there is no criminal history for the Defendant, and there is no other criminal history for the Defendant. The Defendant’s age, character, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair. Thus, 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 as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, Article 18(3) and Article 18(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act are amended ex officio as “Article 18(3) and Article 16 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure” (Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act shall be amended as “Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014).”