2. It is true that the Defendant: (a) introduced E to the purpose of developing the instant land and carrying out the gas station construction; and (b) despite the fact that the Defendant, when signing and sealing the instant document from L, made it possible to assume criminal responsibility.

However, the Defendant has no criminal records exceeding fines (the same type of crime does not have any criminal records), leading the instant crime is D and only passive participation by the Defendant. Borrowing the instant land from the complainant as collateral is D and C, and the Defendant is not in a position to directly regard the instant crime as well as all sentencing factors indicated in the instant argument, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime. In full view of the following factors, the sentence of the lower court is appropriate, and it is not recognized that it is unfair because it is too unreasonable. Thus, the Prosecutor’s grounds for appeal are 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.