2. The Defendant did not file a report on property change in order to receive basic livelihood security benefits even though income was generated by economic activities as an unqualified person, and received the total of 26,224,890 won of livelihood benefits and housing benefits during the nearest three years.

The total period of crime or total acquisition amount reaches a considerable degree, which eventually leads to the damage of a legitimate beneficiary.

In this respect, we agree with the prosecutor's argument that more strict punishment is needed.

However, the Defendant paid a certain monthly amount according to the head of Gangnam-gu Office’s disposition of the refund of benefits, and made efforts to return the illegally received amount by paying an additional amount of KRW 5 million on June 1, 2015, which is after the sentence of the lower judgment.

The Defendant, who had no past record of criminal punishment, showed the appearance that the Defendant was able to take time to commit the instant crime and reflect in depth from the beginning.

In addition, considering the following factors, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, family relation, social ties, background leading to the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unjustifiable compared to the Defendant’s criminal liability.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.