2. The defendant was employed by the victims;

The victims have been unable to recover a considerable amount of investment money by disposing of the skin without the consent of the victims and using it at will.

However, when the obligation of the Defendant accumulated due to the progress of the operation of the scambling, the Defendant requested the victims to take over or liquidate the scambling prior to the disposition, but it did not reach agreement on the content of loss burden, etc., and therefore, the crime of this case was committed. The considerable portion of the disposal price of the scambling was appropriated for the repayment of the scambling loan in the scambling bank, and the Defendant appears to have agreed to preferentially repay the lease cost in relation to the lease, especially the victims and the victims, including the ratio of profit distribution under the scambling contract, there remains a settlement problem including the ratio of profit distribution under the scambling contract, the circumstances after the crime, the Defendant’s personality and behavior, etc., it cannot be deemed unfair for the lower court’s punishment

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.