2. In light of the following: (a) although the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is not a large amount, the Defendant is deemed to have failed to make any effort to recover the damage of the victim; (b) the Defendant is deemed to have violated his/her mistake; (c) there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime; (d) the Defendant was a de facto marital relationship with the net K and K that was the former representative director of the victim company; and (c) there were circumstances to consider the circumstances, such as using part of the amount of the instant embezzlement for the purpose of repaying the said K’s obligation; and (d) other factors of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) there are no circumstances before and after the crime

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.