2. The instant crime was committed over the two months, and the majority of the victims are many, and the fact that the amount of damage was not much significant is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, taking into account the facts that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and against the victim, the amount of damage was fully repaid to the victims, and the facts that there were no criminal records of the same kind in addition to once a fine, and taking into account other factors of all the sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, family relationship, circumstances leading to the Defendant to commit the instant crime, means and results, the sentence imposed by the lower court is appropriate, and the sentencing judgment by the lower court exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit, since the court below's punishment is too unfasible.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.