2. The crime of this case is deemed to have been committed by the Defendant at the request of many persons and mediated fraudulent loans, such as start-up funds and vehicle purchase price, and received compensation therefor. In light of the criminal history and the method of the crime, the crime of this case is very poor in light of the nature of the crime, and the Defendant again committed the crime of this case even though he had the record of being subject to a disposition of suspension of execution once for the same crime, and the total amount of damage exceeds KRW 127 million, it is deemed that there is a need to punish the Defendant, and it is inevitable to sentence a punishment.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s time to commit the instant crime; (b) the victim Q does not want the Defendant’s punishment; (c) the Co-Defendant C repaid the amount of KRW 13 million out of the loans; and (d) other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age and behavior environment; and the circumstances before and after committing the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

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.