2. The lower court determined that the Defendant acquired money by deceiving a large number of unspecified victims from the Internet site to 133 people during a month, and, in particular, sold money to the parents who raise a child.

In light of the fact that the nature of the crime is not good, the sentence was imposed by taking into account the following factors: (a) the fact that the defendant committed the crime entirely and mistakenly; (b) the fact that the supply and demand situation, not the planned crime; (c) the aggravation of the supply and demand situation; (d) the fact that the amount of damage was fully paid to all 13 victims; (c) the victims who did not have been prosecuted, and (d) the victims did not want the punishment; and (e) 128 victims do not want the punishment; (e) the first offender is the first offender; and (e) the sentence was imposed by taking into account the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances, and circumstances after

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

As required by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, Internet goods fraud crime is deemed to be a serious criminal that undermines the foundation of electronic commerce by destroying trust between the parties to the transaction, and the amount of fraud is not much considerable than 29 million won, but it is recognized that the amount of fraud is a total of 29 million won, which appears to have already been considered in the court below. As such, the above conditions of sentencing have changed

It is difficult to see it.

In full view of the above sentencing, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unffortunate.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above 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.