2. The instant crime was committed on the part of the Defendant, and thus, requires strict punishment. The instant crime was committed on the part of the Defendant, and the actual occurrence of the Plaintiff’s singishing fraud, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, the defendant was living without other criminal records, and the fact that the defendant seems to have no actual profit from the crime of this case, etc., and other factors of sentencing specified in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime of this case, circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it seems that the defendant will be given sufficient warning to the punishment sentenced by the court below.

(However, there is no clear warning that the defendant cannot take more action in the event that the defendant again commits the same crime in the future). 3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is groundless. Thus, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.