2. The lower court sentenced the above punishment by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s leased deposit account, taking into account the fact that the Defendant’s deposit account was used for the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission

In full view of the circumstances taken into account by the lower court and all other conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background and consequence of the commission of the offense, means and consequence, size of the offense, and circumstances after the commission of the offense, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, as asserted by a prosecutor, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair as it is so far as it ought to be reversed.

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.