2. The judgment was based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant made a confession of a crime while committing the crime; (b) the Defendant only led to the instant crime to smoothly conclude the Defendant’s leading construction; and (c) appears not to have obtained any negative benefits therefrom; (b) the Defendant appears to have suffered direct damage from the person holding the document name due to the instant crime; and (c) the fact that there was no previous conviction or suspended execution or more than a previous conviction is a favorable sentencing ground; and (d) the fact that there was no previous conviction or suspended execution or more than a previous conviction during the construction of a new building for a long time repeatedly participating in the construction of the new building, and thus, the offense is a reason for imposing unfavorable punishment.

In full view of all the above sentencing factors, the Defendant’s age, sex, career, family relation, economic situation, background and motive leading up to the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and other matters on the sentencing indicated in the records and arguments on the change of the circumstances, the judgment below’s punishment is deemed appropriate, and the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit, since there is no change of circumstances to be considered in the trial.

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.