2. In light of the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced two times to suspended execution for the same crime, the crime of this case was committed by deceiving a total of KRW 200 million against the victims who did not have the right to occupy the leased apartment, etc., and the nature of the crime is inferior, and the judgment of simple concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act against the Defendant was sentenced to suspended execution, and the Defendant paid a part of the damages to the victims, but still did not recover damages exceeding KRW 100 million, it is necessary to sentence strict punishment against the Defendant.

However, as seen earlier, considering the following circumstances, the Defendant’s reflection of the crime, the fact that the judgment partially repaid to the victims (a total of KRW 76 million), the equity in the case where the judgment was rendered at the same time as the final judgment was rendered, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, scale of damage, and circumstances after the crime, etc., even if considering the aforementioned circumstances, it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unreasonable as it is excessively unfeasible.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion 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.