2. The crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, where the defendant committed the crime of this case with assets owned by the building equivalent to 700 million won, and the crime of this case was committed by deceiving the damaged person about 29 million won under the pretext of borrowing three times, and the nature of the crime is not good. The defendant had a record of criminal punishment on several occasions, including that he was punished four times for the same crime even before, and that it did not reach an agreement with the victim up to the trial of the party.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant had no record of criminal punishment heavier than the previous fine, up to the depth of the party, deposited a total of 8 million won for the victim, committed the instant crime under the premise of marriage with the victim, and imposed the monthly income of the house living together with the victim, is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the court below’s punishment is too unfasible and unfair, and 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.