2. The Defendant’s judgment on the grounds of appeal cannot be deemed to have completely recovered since it was made only conditional agreements despite the fact that the Defendant went to the instant crime during the repeated crime period, such as the crime of aiding and abetting fraud, and the injury was not caused.

However, all these circumstances are the circumstances in which the court below has already considered or was present at the court below's decision of punishment.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant, the character and conduct of the defendant, the relationship with the victim, the motive and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the judgment of the court below is difficult to evaluate that the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and there is no change in circumstances that can be newly considered in the trial of the court in the record.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, in the case of choosing a fine, it cannot be the subject of aggravation of repeated crime (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1018, Jul. 27, 1982); pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, ex officio, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the judgment of the court below is to delete “Article 35 of the Criminal Act from among repeated crimes” in the application of Acts and subordinate statutes