2. In light of the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, the lower court determined that: (a) considering the fact that: (b) the telephone financing fraud crime of this case, such as this case, is committed in a planned and systematic intelligent manner against many unspecified persons; (c) serious damage to the victim; and (d) there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant’s involvement as well as the total liability; and (b) there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant’s involvement in the crime; (c) under the favorable circumstances to the Defendant, the Defendant has yet to be committed; (d) there is no history of criminal punishment so far; (d) the victim does not want punishment against the Defendant by fully paying the amount obtained by the victim; (e) the fact that the victim does not want to obtain the actual profits; and (e) the fact that the victim does not have any awareness that the Defendant actually acquired the telephone financing fraud exceeding do not have to take part in the crime with the awareness that he participated in the telephone financing fraud; and (e) the Defendant’s age, motive, circumstance, and circumstances following the crime, and all of the crime.

As above, the sentencing of the court below appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope by fully taking into account the above conditions of the sentencing, and there is no special change in circumstances that can be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the court below up to the appellate court, and it is difficult to view that the sentence of the court below is unfair because it is too uneas

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is justified.