2. The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated crime.

All the defendants have a record of criminal punishment over 15 times (three times of punishment, one suspended sentence, and one-time of fines), and six times of which (three times of punishment and three times of fines) are criminal records identical to each of the crimes of this case.

However, by recognizing all of the crimes of this case, the defendant has shown not only cooperation in investigation but also his attitude to repent of his mistake.

The total amount of damage caused by each of the instant crimes cannot be deemed to be a large amount of 17.3 million won.

The defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim.

It seems that the health and economic conditions of the defendant are not good.

In addition, even if the defendant's age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, its method and consequence, etc. are added to all the factors of sentencing indicated in the records and arguments, there is no new circumstance to deem that the sentencing conditions of the court below against the defendant have been changed in the first instance court, and it is not determined that the sentencing of the court below is unfair because it goes too far beyond reasonable discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.